THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 

From  the  library  of 
Harry  Harkness  Stoek 
Professor  of 
Mining  Engineering 
1909-1923 
Purchased  1923. 


<3-331.89 

*Ur\3p 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF 


The  Anthracite 
Mine  Strike  Commission 


ESS 


JUDGE ’GEORGE  GRAY,  President 
BRIGADIER-GENERAL  JOHN  M.  WILSON 
BISHOP  JOHN  L.  SPAULDING 
E.  W.  PARKER 
THOMAS  H.  WATKINS 
E.  E.  CLARK 

CARROLL  D.  WRIGHT,  Recorder 


REPRINTED  FROM 
TFT  EE  SCRANTON  TRIBUNE 


■^TffE  TRIBUNE 


C,  33L  <n 

" XL™  3 ~£> . 

Proceedings  of 

The  Anthracite  Mine  Strike  Commission 

Reprinted  from  The  Scranton  Tribune  1902-03 

Proceedings  of  Priday,  Nov.  1-4,  1902 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  15.] 


That  trite  and  generally  true  adage 
that  it  is  the  unexpected  which  happens 
was  illustrated  forcibly  In  the  first 
day’s  session  of  the  mine  strike  com- 
mission. 

All  the  operators  declared  that  the 
matter  of  recognizing  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  was  not  a subject 
for  the  consideration  of  the  commission, 
and  several  of  them,  in  their  formal 
answers,  explicitly  stated  they  were  un- 
willing to  have  the  question  of  the  pro- 
priety or  necessity  of  an  agreement 
with  the  union  submitted  for  investiga- 
tion or  adjudication  by  the  commission. 

Despite  this.  President  Mitchell  in- 
sisted on  injecting  it  into  the  hearing; 
In  fact,  he  made  it  the  most  prominent 
feature  of  his  opening  statement,  and 
to  the  surprise  of  those  not  in  the  coun- 
cils of  the  companies,  the  operators, 
with  evident  eagerness,  picked  up  the 
gauntlet  and  proceeded  to  give  battle 
where  the  enemy  invited. 

The  Delaware  and  Hudson  company. 
In  its  answer  to  the  miners’  statement, 
was  particularly  emphatic  in  excepting 
to  the  miners  being  allowed  to  inject 
the  question  of  the  advisability  of  the 
recognition  of  the  union,  asserting,  in 
common  with  the  other  companies,  that 
the  proposition  under  which  the  com- 
mission was  created  and  is  supposed  to 
work,  eliminated  this  as  an  issue. 

Yet,  in  the  face  of  this,  the  vice-pres- 
ident and  general  counsel  of  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company,  David  Wil- 
cox, took  up  the  cross-examination  of 
Mr.  Mitchell  and  never  by  so  much  as 
a single  query  sought  to  elicit  any- 
thing except  answers  bearing  on  the 
desirability  of  a trade  agreement  with 
the  United  Mine  Workers. 

For  the  three  hours  of  the  day  that 
remained  for  cross-examination.  At- 
torney Wilcox  plied  Mr.  Mitchell  -with 
questions  tending  to  bring  out  admis- 
sions corroborative  of  the  operators’  al- 
legations against  the  miners’  union. 
Some  of  his  questions  put  the  witness  to 
his  wit’s  end  for  an  answer  that  would 
not  be  a downright  evasion  or  palpable 
equivocation. 

Attitude  of  Union. 

Seemingly  contradictory  declarations 
of  President  Mitchell  on  the  one  side 
end  the  constitution  of  the  miners’ 
union  on  the  other  anent  sympathetic 
strikes;  the  assertions  of  the  union  that 
it  discountenanced  lawlessness  and  the 
absence  of  any  active,  or  at  all  events 
aggressive,  endeavors  to  prevent  it;  the 


Inadvisability  of  the  anthracite  oper- 
ators dealing  with  a union  which  can 
be  controlled  by  the  miners  of  the  bitu- 
minous region,  and  various  other  of 
the  points  on  which  the  operators  re- 
sist the  contention  of  the  miners  that 
the  union  should  oe  recognized,  were 
made  subjects  of  Mr.  Mitchell’s  cross- 
examination. 

The  miners’  leader  was  several  times 
put  in  what  might  be  termed  tight  cor- 
ners, but  each  time  he  squirmed  out 
with  Irene  or  less  success  and  grace. 
He  fought  every  inch  of  the  ground, 
and  seldom  made  an  answer  to  even 
the  simp'est  question  without  exercis- 
ing his  prerogative  of  modifying  by  ex- 
planation. The  instances  in  which  he 
contented  himself  with  a “yes”  or  “no” 
response  were  rare  indeed.  He  admitted 
nothing  that  was  not  favorable  to  his 
cause  and,  not  infrequently,  when  some- 
thing of  almost  universal  knowledge 
was  proposed  for  discussion,  he  wold, 
i”  a discussion  was  not  to  his  liking, 
take  i efuge  behind  a plea  that  he  "could 
not  recall,”  or  was  “not  personally 
aware”  of  it. 

The  cross-examination  was  a tense 
and  exceedingly  interesting  battle  be- 
tween two  brainy  men,  and  will  doubt- 
less long  live  in  the  memory  of  those 
vho  witnessed  it. 

With  the  exception  of  the  unexpected 
turn  the  Fist  day’s  testimony  took,  the 
programme  was  as  forecast  in  The  Tri- 
bune. There  was  a brief  discussion,  at 
the  opening,  as  to  procedure;  then  Mr. 
Mitchell  read  his  opening  statement, 
outlining  what  the  miners’  side  pro- 
pose to  show,  and  after  that  he  went 
on  the  stand  to  give  general  testimony 
as  to  the  conditions  in  the  region,  the 
merits  of  the  grievances  which  the 
miners  want  redressed,  and  especially 
the  recognition  of  the  union  as  the  pri- 
mal panacea  for  the  ills  complained  of. 
He  was  still  on  the  stand  under  cross- 
examination  when  the  commission  rose 
at  1 o'clock. 

Court  Room  Crowded. 

The  court  room  was  jammed  during 
the  two  sessions  and  hundreds  were  un- 
able to  gain  admittance.  The  lawyers, 
company  officials,  miners’  representa- 
tives and  newspaper  men  filled  the  bar 
enclosure.  Witnesses  and  spectators 
crowded  the  space  outside  the  enclos- 
ure, a good  part  of  the  onlookers  being 
members  of  the  local  bar,  who  were 
given  preference  by  the  door-tenders  at 
the  behest  of  the  commission. 


The  day  passed  off  without  the  sem- 
blance of  an  acrimonious  exchange.  In 
fact,  there  was  hardly  an  instance  of 
what  might  fairly  be  called  an  inter- 
ruption of  the  one  side  by  the  other.  It 
was  the  intenseness  of  all  the  partici- 
pants and  the  rapt  attention  of  the  on- 
lookers that  mainly  told  of  the  mo- 
mentous war  that  was  being  waged. 


Opening’  of  Sessions. 

As  early  as  9.30  o’clock,  there  was  a 
crowd  massed  against  the  doors  of  the 
superior  court  room,  anxiously  and 
eagerly  bent  on  getting  within  to  wit- 
ness the  opening  scene  of  the  epoch- 
making  event  in  the  history  of  the  re- 
lations of  capital  and  labor — to  be  eye- 
witnesses of  an  event  to  which  the  at- 
tention of  the  whole  world  is  attracted. 

Orders  had  been  given  through  As- 
sistant Recorder  Moseley  to  the  three 
police  officers  and  two  tipstaves  at  the 
door,  to  admit  only  those  identified  by 
him  as  having  business  at  the  hearings. 
After  those  for  whom  places  had  been 
reserved  within  the  bar  enclosure  and 
the  witness  seats  had  been  passed 
through,  the  general  public  was  al- 
lowed to  enter,  the  lawyers  being  given 
preference.  In  a few  moments  the 
spectators’  seats  and  all  the  available 
standing  room  were  occupied.  There 
was  some  coming  and  going  as  the 
morning  progressed,  but  as  a general 
rule  those  who  were  fortunate  enough 
to  gain  entrance  held  their  places  till 
the  recess. 

The  arrangement  of  tables  and  seats 
for  counsel,  parties  in  interest  and 
newspapermen,  was  found  to  be  em- 
inently satisfactory.  Mr.  Mitchell  and 
his  attorneys  sat  at  the  table  on  the 
Washington  avenue  side  of  the  room. 
In  the  center  were  the  attorneys  for 
the  big  companies.  At  the  easterly  side 
of  the  room  were  the  attorneys  for  the 
Independent  operators  and  non-union 
men. 

The  newspaper  workers  were  accom- 
modated with  seats  in  the  jury  box  or 
Immediately  adjacent  thereto.  There 
were  thirty  newspapermen  present,  in- 
cluding representatives  of  Chicago,  New 
York,  Philadelphia,  Washington  and 
Wilkes-Barre  papers,  and  the  three 
press  associations. 

Prominent  Mine  Workers. 

Seated  near  their  counsel’s  table  were 
prominent  members  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers.  Among  them  were  District 


563460 


4 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Presidents  T.  D.  Nicholls,  Thos.  Duffy 
and  John  Fahy.  Miss  E.  C.  Morris, 
private  secretary  to  President  Mitchell; 
District  Vice  President  Adam  Ry- 
scavage,  Board  Members  Michael  Hea- 
ley, Henry  Collins,  John  Kearney, 
Stephen  Reap,  Dr.  Weyl,  of  New  Yo.k; 
Rev.  Peter  Roberts,  of  Mahonoy  City, 
and  James  Marwick,  of  New  York,  who 
have  assisted  in  the  preparation  of  the 
miners’  case  also  sat  nearby. 

Among  the  officials  of  the  big  com- 
panies seated  convenient  to  their  at- 
torneys’ table  were:  Vice  President  E. 

E.  Loomis,  general  manager  of  the 
coal  department  of  the  Delaware,  Lack- 
awanna and  Western  company;  Reese 
A.  Phillips,  general  superindent  of  the 
coal  department  of  the  Delaware,  Lack- 
awanna and  Western  company;  A.  I. 
Culver,  comptroller  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company;  S.  B.  Thorne, 
general  manager  of  the  Temple  Iron 
company;  C.  C.  Rose,  general  superin- 
tendent of  the  coal  department 
of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
company;  John  R.  Bryden,  general 
manager  of  the  Scranton  Coal  com- 
pany and  Elk  Hill  Coal  and  Iron  com- 
pany; W.  A.  May,  general  manager  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company,  Hill- 
side Coal  and  Iron  company  and  coal 
interests  of  the  New  York,  Susque- 
hanna and  Western  company. 

Near  the  independent  operators’  table 
were  seated  Recorder  W.  L.  Connell, 
president  and  general  manager  of  the 
Green  Ridge  Coal  company  and  Enter- 
prise Coal  company;  J.  L.  Crawford, 
president  of  the  People’s  Coal  com- 
pany, Dr.  J.  N.  Rice,  H.  B.  Reynolds, 
John  H.  Brooks  and  W.  H.  Gearhart, 
who  are  interested  in  different  individ- 
ual operations. 

O.  D.  Simpson,  partner  of  Commis- 
sioner Watkins;  Rev.  James  McLeod, 
D.  D.,  pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian 
church,  Mine  Inspector  Edward  Rod- 
erick, and  W.  H.  Taylor  were  a few 
prominent  S<  rantonians  who  were  givey 
seats  within  the  enclosure. 

Local  Judges  Present. 

President  Judge  H.  M.  Edwards  and 
Judge  John  P.  Kelly  sat  near  the  com- 
missioners for  an  hour  or  so  of  the 
morning  session  at  the  commissioners’ 
invitation.  Judge  A.  A.'  Vosburg 
dropped  in  for  a little  while,  but  sat 
among  the  spectators.  Rev.  J.  V.  Moy- 
lan,  of  Holy  Rosary  church.  North 
Scranton,  was  also  an  onlooker  from 
the  spectators’  chairs  for  a few  hours. 

A photographer  had  set  up  a large 
camera  and  flash  light  apparatus  in  the 
rear  of  the  room,  with  the  intention  of 
“snapping”  Lie  commissioners  befo: e 
they  row  for  th?  noon  recess,  but  the 
commissioners  did  not  wait  to  1 e 
“snapped,”  and  the  camera  man  went 
awav . 

It  was  10  05  when  the  commissioners 
entered  from  the  consulting  room  at 
the  rear.  As  they  appeared.  Assistant 
Recorder  Mor;  ley  announced,  “The  An- 
thracite Mine  Strike  Commission!”  and 


everybody  stood  and  remained  standing 
until  the  commissioners  took  their 
seats. 

Judge  Gray,  president  of  the  commis- 
sion, took  the  middle  seat.  On  his  right 
in  the  order  named  were  seated  Re- 
corder Wright,  Mr.  Clark  and  Mr.  Wat- 
kins, and  on  his  left,  General  Wilson, 
Bishop  Spalding  and  Mr.  Parker.  This 
is  the  same  order  in  which  they  sat 
at  their  first  meeting  in  Washington. 

Judge  Gray  opened  the  session  by 
simply  announcing  that  the  commission 
was  reassembling  pursuant  to  an  ad- 
journment to  give  the  parties  oppor- 
tunity to  prepare  their  eases  and  were 
now  ready  to  proceed.  As  had  been 
understood,  the  miners'  side  would  be 
heard  first.  They  might  present  their 
case,  he  said,  in  their  own  way. 

Raised  New  Issue. 

Attorney  Darrow  was  the  first  of  the 
attorneys  to  speak.  He  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  some  of  the  answers  to 
the  miners’  statement  raised  or  sought 
to  raise  some  new  issues,  and  as  the 
last  of  the  answers  had  been  received 
only  the  day  before,  the  miners  would 
like  to  have  an  opportunity  to  make 
replication  next  Monday. 

Judge  Gray  looked  quizzically  at  the 
counsel  for  the  other  parties  and  no 
objections  being  forthcoming  declared 
that  there  were  no  objections  to  this 
request  and  it  was  granted. 

Hon. Wayne  MacVeagh,  of  counsel  for 
the  Erie  company,  suggested  that  the 
names  of  the  parties  to  the  controversy 
be  called  that  their  respective  attor- 
neys might  announce  their  appear- 
ances. This  suggestion  was  adopted  by 
the  commissioners  and  responses  were 
made  as  follows: 

For  the  Miners — Clarence  S.  Darrow. 
of  Chicago;  H.  D.  Lloyd,  of  New  York; 
John  J.  Murphy,  of  Scranton;  James 
Lenahan,  John  F.  Shea,  James  H.  Shea, 
of  Wilkes-Barre.  Mr.  Darrow  also  an- 
nounced that  John  Mitchell  would  appear 
generally  for  the  miners’  side. 

Philadelphia  and  Reading— Hon.  Simon 
P.  Wolverton,  of  Sunbury:  H.  T.  New- 
comb, of  New  York,  and  J.  F.  Whalen. 

Erie  Companies— Hon.  Wayne  Mac- 
Veagh, of  Philadelphia;  George  E.  Brow- 
nell, of  New  York,  and  Maior  Everett 
Warren,  of  Scranton. 

Delaware.  Lackawanna  and  Western — 
W.  W.  Ross,  of  New  York,  and  John  R. 
Wilson,  of  Scranton. 

Ontario  and  Western  Companies— John 
B.  Kerr,  of  New  York;  ex-Justice  Al- 
fred Hand  and  J.  E.  Burr,  of  Scranton. 

Delaware  and  Hudson— David  Wilcox, 
of  New  York,  and  James  H.  Torrey,  of 
Scranton. 

Lehigh  Valley  Coal  Company — Francis 
I.  Gowan,  of  Philadelphia,  and  Willard 
V"rren  & Knapn.  of  Scranton 

X,  -t'igh  and  Wilkes-Barre— De  Forrest 
Prothers.  of  N»w  York,  and  A.  H.  Mc- 
Cfintock.  of  Wilke.s-Rarre. 

Independent  Operators — H.  C.  Reynolds 
and  [.  T-I.  Burns,  of  Scranton. 

Other  attorneys  who  wi’l  come  into 
the  case  Inter  are  George  R.  Bed'ord, 
of  Wilkes-Barre,  r-  presm-it'ng  Markle 
and  Co  ; H.  A.  Fuller,  of  Wilkes-Barre, 
representing  the  independent  op:rators. 


The  Non-Union  Men. 

John  T.  Lenahan,  of  Wilkes-Barre, 
and  Joseph  O’Brien,  of  this  city,  were 
present  in  the  interests  of  the  non- 
union men,  and  when  Recorder  Wright 
failed  to  call  the  names  of  their  party, 
Mr.  Lenahan  arose  and  stated  that 
himself  and  Mr.  O’Brien  represented 
the  non-union  men,  so  called,  and 
would  like  to  know  something  of  the 
procedure  that  they  might  be  prepared 
to  present  their  clients'  case. 

Judge  Gray  said:  “They  are  not  for- 

mal parties  to  this  controversy,  Mr. 
Lenahan.” 

“Any  party  appearing  here,”  suggest- 
ed Attorney  Darrow,  “should  file  a 
statement  that  we  may  know  who  are 
before  the  commission.” 

Judge  Gray  asserted  that  some  state- 
ment should  be  filed.  The  commission, 
he  said,  would  consider  the  matter. 


MITCHELL’S  STATEMENT. 

This  matter  being  temporarily  dis- 
posed of,  the  miners  offered  their  case 
by  introducing  President  Mitchell  to 
read  his  statement.  He  began  at  10.17 
and  concluded  at  just  11  o’clock.  The 
statement  was  6,000  words  in  length.  A 
synopsis  of  it  prepared  at  the  Mine 
Workers’  headquarters  is  given  here: 

Of  the  147.000  men  and  boys  employed 
in  and  around  the  mines,  strippings, 
washeries  and  breakers  in  the  anthracite 
coal  fields,  64,072,  or  43  per  cent,  are  em- 
ployed on  contract,  or  piece  work;  the 
remaining  83,000,  or  57  per  cent,  are  em- 
ployed by  the  hour,  day,  week  or  month. 
The  work  of  a contract  miner  requires 
an  unusually  high  degree  of  skill.  The 
work  of  a miner  and  a miner’s  laborer  is 
extremely  hazardous,  in  fact,  it  is  more 
dangerous  than  employment  in  any  other 
important  industry  in  the  world.  The 
number  of  persons  killed  and  injured  per 
one  thousand  employed  is  greater  than 
in  any  other  industry.  Eacli  day  the  an- 
thracite coal  mines  are  in  operation,  two 
and  six-tenth  persons  lose  their  lives  and 
three  times  as  many  are  maimed,  and 
yet  these  men  receive  less  wages  an- 
nually than  are  received  by  men  per- 
forming precisely  similar  work  in  other 
fields  under  more  favorable  and  less 
hazardous  conditions. 

The  number  of  years  a man  can  retain 
his  health  and  strength  in  this  occupa- 
tion is  limited.  If  he  escapes  death  or 
injury  by  falls  of  rock  or  coal,  he  can- 
not escape  attacks  of  miners'  asthma. 
There  is  scarcely  a mine  worker  who  has 
not  contracted  this  malady.  The  miners 
are  compelled  to  work  in  powder  smoke, 
in  foul  air.  many  of  them  in  water,  and 
their  work  itself  is  difficult  and  very  ex- 
hausting. Reputable  insurance  com- 
panies will  not  issue  policies  to  this  class 
of  workmen— the  risks  are  so  great  that 
the  premiums  would  be  prohibitive  to 
men  whose  earnings  are  so  low.  The  en- 
tire twenty  per  cent,  which  they  demand 
as  an  increase  in  their  wages  would  not 
suffice  to  carry  an  insurance  of  one 
thousand  dollars. 

Reduction  of  Hours. 

In  supporting  the  demand  for  the 
reduction  of  hours  of  day  laborers,  Mr. 
Mitchell  showed  that  it  amounted  prac- 
tically to  a demand  for  20  per  cent, 
increase  of  compensation  for  83.000 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


5 


men,  or  57  per  cent,  of  all  mine  em- 
ployes. 

Continuing:,  he  said: 

The  eight-hour  day  is  the  standard 
working  day  in  the  mining  industry. 
Eight  hours  sonstitutes  a day's  work  in 
the  coal  mines  of  Great  Britain,  in  all 
the  silver,  gold  and  copper  mines,  and 
in  the  bituminous  coal  mines,  in  the 
states  of  Arkansas,  Kansas,  Missouri, 
Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Michigan, 
Kentucky,  Tennessee,  in  Western  Penn- 
sylvania and  in  the  Indian  Territory. 

The  reports  of  the  United  States  Geo- 
logical Survey  demonstrate  that  more 
coal  has  been  produced  annually  since 
the  inauguration  of  the  eight-hour  work- 
day than  in  any  preceding  year.  Each 
miner  produced  more  coal  per  working 
day  in  eight  hours  than  ne  formerly  pro- 
duced in  ten  hours,  ana  there  is  no  rea- 
son why  the  same  results  would  not  ob- 
tain in  the  anthracite  field. 

‘ The  bituminous  workers  receive,  in 
many  instances,  from  20  to  40  per  cent, 
higher  wages  for  eight  hours’  work.  A 
comparison  of  the  wages  paid  to  skilled 
workman  in  fifty  of  our  largest  cities 
shows  that  machinists,  carpenters, 
electricians,  engineers  and  firemen  re- 
ceive from  20  to  50  per  cent,  higher  wages 
than  are  paid  these  classes  of  workmen 
in  the  anthracite  mines,  while  the  hours 
of  laborers  are  from  two  to  four  less  m 
the  cities. 

Defending  the  third  demand  that  coal 
shall  be  weighed  and  paid  for  by 
weight,  and  that  2,240  pounds  shall  con- 
stitute a ton,  Mr.  Mitchell  said: 

The  present  method  of  measuring  the 
coal  produced  by  the  miners  in  the 
Lackawanna,  Wyoming  and  Lehigh  re- 
gions has  been  the  source  of  more  dis- 
content than  any  other  of  the  many  in- 
justices imposed  upon  the  miners,  and 
there  can  be  no  contentment  among  these 
workers  until  an  honest  system  has  been 
adopted.  Paying  for  coal  by  the  car  or 
by  a ton,  weighing  from  2,740  to  3,IHU 
pounds,  is  a flagrant  injustice.  The  cars 
have  been  made  larger,  more  topping  :s 
required,  and  there  has  been  no  corres- 
ponding increase  in  the  amount  paid  per 
car  or  per  ton.  The  miners  have  been 
forced  to  produce  a constantly  increasing 
amount  of  coal,  for  which  they  receive 
no  additional  compensation. 

Basis  of  Pay. 

The  miners  snould  be  paid  for  every 
pound  of  coal  he  mines  that  is  sold  by 
the  operator.  If  2,240  pounds  constitute 
a ton  where  coal  is  sold  to  the  consumer; 
if  2,240  pounds  constitute  a ton  when 
royalties  are  paid;  if  2,240  pounds  consti- 
tute a ton  when  railroad  companies  are 
paid  for  transporting  coal  to  market, 
what  justice  can  there  be  in  deijying  the 
miner  the  right  to  be  paid  for  his  labor 
upon  the  same  basis? 

A large  amount  of  coal  has  been  ship- 
ped and  sold  in  excess  of  the  amount 
for  which  the  miners  are  paid;  and, 
while  we  are  willing  to  be  fair— and  even 
generous — we  are  not  willing  to  mine  coal 
gratuitously.  We  do  not  believe  that  the 
consumers  of  anthracite  coal  wish  the 
miners  to  produce  any  portion  of  it  for 
nothing. 

The  anthracite  companies,  not  satisfied 
with  an  extra  legal  ton  of  from  2710  to 
3190  pounds,  have  a system  of  docking 
through  which  they  appropriate  addi- 
tional part  of  the  miners’  earnings.  A 
miner  is  docked  all  the  way  from  500  to 
1,000  pounds  upon  a car,  as  a penalty  for 


loading  impurities,  for  which  he  has  al- 
ready been  penalized  to  the  extent  of 
from  700  to  900  pounds  in  excess  measure 
or  weight;  in  other  words,  he  is  punished 
twice  for  the  same  offense.  A system 
somewhat  similar,  but  less  unjust,  ob- 
tained in  a portion  of  the  bituminous  coal 
field  many  years  ago.  but  the  miners  are 
now  paid  by  weight  op  the  basis  of  a 
legal  ton;  they  are  not.  only  permitted, 
but  are  encouraged,  by  the  operators,  to 
employ  check-weighmen  to  see  that  the 
product  of  their  labor  is  properly  weighed 
and  a correct  record  made  thereof. 

Mr.  Mitchell  then  took  up  the  fourth 
demand  of  the  miners  for  a trade 
agreement,  with  the  necessary  machin- 
ery for  the  adjustment  of  local  griev- 
ances. He  outlined  the  history  and 
policy  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  and  explained  that  by  its  con- 
stitution the  anthracite  and  bitumin- 
ous mine  workers  had  home  rule  for 
the  local  government  of  local  affairs. 
He  said: 

Responsibility  of  Union. 

The  only  matter  in  which  the  national 
organization  as  such  is  permitted  to  in- 
terfere is  that,  before  a strike  is  in- 
augurated by  the  district  organization, 
the  approval  of  the  president  of  the  na- 
tional union  must  be  obtained;  but  the 
president  of  the  national  organization  has 
no  authority  to  inaugurate  a strike. 
Thus  the  coal  mine  operators  are  afford- 
ed a greater  measure  of  protection 
against  strikes  than  they  would  have  un- 
der a separate  and  independent  organi- 
zation. The  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  is  affiliated  with  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor;  it  is  formed  upon 
precisely  the  same  lines  and  for  ths 
same  purposes  as  other  trade  unions;  it 
is  numerically  the  strongest  single  traae 
organization  in  the  world. 

As  to  the  responsibility  of  the  mine 
workers’  organization,  Mr.  Mitchell 
said: 

At  the  present  time  the  LTnited  Mine 
Workers  of  America  has  contracts  with 
the  operators  of  fourteen  states  and  dis- 
tricts, fixing  the  amount  the  miners  shall 
receive  per  ton,  the  amount  the  various 
classes  of  labor  shall  receive  per  day, 
the  number  of  hours  that  shall  consti- 
tute a day’s  work,  and  the  methods  and 
machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  local 
grievances,  by  joint  conference  with  the 
mine  owners.  These  are  mutual  con- 
tracts which  are  advantageous  to  both 
miner  and  operator,  and  protect  the  pub- 
lic against  the  effects  of  strikes  or  lock- 
outs. The  reports  of  the  United  States 
government  upon  strikes  in  the  mining 
industry  show  that  the  number  and  dur- 
ation of  strikes  have  been  materially  re- 
duced each  year  since  the  system  oi 
joint  conference  and  mutual  agreement 
has  been  introduced. 

Where  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  is  recognized  and  contracted 
with,  it  assumes  the  responsibility  of  dis- 
ciplining its  members.  The  trade  agree- 
ment has  proved  effective  in  restraining 
workmen  from  engaging  in  local  or  gen- 
eral strikes.  There  have  been  no  strikes 
of  any  magnitude  in  any  of  the  coal  min- 
ing states  in  which  trade  agreements 
exist.  We  seek  to  establish  the  same 
method  of  adjusting  wage  differences  in 
the  anthracite  field. 

We  make  this  demand  because  we 
know  that  permanent  peace  and  friendly 
relations  can  be  best  maintained  through 


a trade  agreement  with  the  organization 
which  our  people  have  elected  to  join. 
Fuly  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  employes 
of  the  anthracite  coal  mines  are  mem- 
bers of  it  from  choice;  they  desire  to 
retain  their  membership  in  it.  It  was  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America  that 
conferred  with  the  president  of  the 
United  States  in  relation  to  the  submis- 
sion of  the  issues  involved;  it  was  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America  that 
was  requested  by  the  president  to  end 
the  strike;  it  was  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  that  declared  the 
strike  at  an  end;  it  was  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  that  sent  the  men 
back  to  work,  and  it  is  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  that  is  pledged  to 
accept  the  award  of  this  commission. 

Failure  to  recognize  the  organization 
was  the  cause  of  many  of  the  local 
strikes  against  which  operators  and  mine 
workers  jointly  complain.  There  have 
been  many  local  strikes  during  the  past 
year,  the  fault  of  which  rests  upon  the 
operators  and  miners  alike.  The  miners, 
failing  to  secure  redress  for  their  wrongs 
(the  companies  having  refused  to  treat 
with  their  representatives)  had  no  choice 
but  to  submit  to  injustice  or  inaugurate 
a strike. 

Recognition  of  Union. 

Recognition  of  the  union  does  not  mean 
dictation  or  interference  by  men  not  em- 
ployed by  the  companies;  it  simply 
means  that  officers  selected  by  the 
mine  workers  shall  exercise  supervision 
over  the  organization  and  shall  counsel 
with  the  mine  workers  as  to  how  their 
trade  affairs  shall  be  conducted.  The 
miners  have  as  much  right  to  select 
spokesmen  to  act  for  them,  to  present 
their  grievances,  to  manage  their  affairs, 
as  have  the  stockholders  of  any  one  of 
the  anthracite  coal  companies  to  elect 
officers  to  perform  like  functions. 

Mr.  Mitchell  concluded  with  a plea 
for  the  children.  He  said; 

Our  little  boys  should  not  be  forced 
Into  the  mines  and  breakers  so  early  in 
life;  our  little  girls  should  not  be  com- 
pelled to  work  in  the  mills  and  factories 
at  an  age  when  they  should  be  in  school. 
These  children  are  future  citizens  of 
our  nation;  their  parents  should  be  en- 
abled to  give  them  at  least  a common 
school  education,  so  as  to  equip  them  to 
bear  the  grave  responsibilities  which  will 
ultimately  devolve  upon  them.  The 
wealth  and  the  future  of  the  nation  are 
not  to  he  measured  by  its  palaces  and 
millionaries,  but  rather  by  the  enlight- 
ened contentment  and  prosperity  of  its 
millions  of  citizens,  who  constitute  the 
bone  and  sinew  of  our  land. 

After  the  counsel  for  all  parties  had 
agreed  with  Judge  Gray  that  the  wit- 
neses  should  be  sworn,  Mr.  Mitchell 
took  the  stand  and  subscribed  to  the 
oaths  as  administered  by  Clerk  of  the 
Courts  Daniels. 

Fifty  minutes  was  Aken  up  by  Mr. 
Willcox  with  the  reading  of  excerpts 
from  Mr.  Mitchell’s  testimony  before 
the  Industrial  commission  in  1S97.  He 
preceded  the  reading  by  asking  Mr. 
Mitchell  to  interrupt  him  and  state  if 
he  has  changed  any  of  his  views  ex- 
pressed at  that  time.  Mr.  Mitchell  did 
not  interrupt  him  once. 

In  his  testimony  before  the  industrial 
commission,  Mr.  Mitchell  declared  the 
Sliding  scale  feasible,  if  the  "minimum 


6 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


scale  was  a living  wage;”  that  restrict- 
ive immigration  laws  were  desirable,  as 
many  of  the  southern  Europeans 
brought  here  were  undesirable  from  a 
trades  union  standpoint,  and  that  he 
opposed  labor  saving  machinery  when 
it  displaced  men. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION'. 

It  was  11.05  when  Mr.  Mitchell’s  direct 
examination  began  and  12.12  when  it 
was  concluded.  Appended  is  the  testi- 
mony substantially  in  full. 

After  stating  that  he  was  33  years  of 
age,  and  that  he  had  worked  in  the 
bituminous  mines  in  all  positions,  door- 
bov  to  miner,  Mr.  Mitchell  proceeded  to 
answer  questions,  as  follows: 

Q.  How  many  members  are  there  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America?  A. 
There  are  approximately  250,000  paid-up 
members  in  the  national  organization. 
There  are  about  110,000  or  115,000  in  the 
anthracite  field;  the  remaining  130,000  or 
135,000  are  in  the  bituminous  field.  It  is 
numerically  stronger  than  any  other  sin- 
gle trade  union.  Q.  How  is  it  divided  as 
to  its  government?  Tell  us  briefly,  so  the 
commission  may  understand  what  it  is.  A. 
It  is  divided  into  eighteen  separate  dis- 
tricts, usually  the  state  lines  define  the 
limitations  of  our  district  organizations, 
except  where  the  mining  population  is 
very  thick,  and  in  that  event  we  form 
districts  ourselves  within  a state.  There 
are  five  districts  in  Pennsylvania.  Q. 
What  proportion  of  the  Mine  Workers  of 
America  are  members  of  your  organiza- 
tion? 

Mr.  Wolverton:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  has 

been  suggested  by  counsel  for  the  re- 
spondents, at  this  time,  that  we  should 
state  to  the  commission  that  the  answers 
of  some  of  these  respondents  deny  the 
relevancy  of  this  character  of  testimony. 
We  do  not  wish  to  be  considered  as  waiv- 
ing that  position  by  not  stating  a formal 
objection. 

The  Chairman:  We  note  your  exception. 

Mr.  Willcox:  You  would  not  note  our 
exception,  Mr.  Chairman,  because  there 
are  no  exceptions. 

The  Chairman:  I understand;  but  we 
will  not  be  particular  about  words.  We 
note  what  Mr.  Wolverton  said. 

A.  There  are  about  70  per  cent,  of  all 
the  mine  workers  of  the  United  States 
members  of  our  local  unions.  I wish  to 
say  that  the  paid-up  membership  and  the 
actual  membership  are  not  the  same;  to 
account  for  what  may  appear  to  be  a dis- 
crepancy in  the  two  statements  I make. 

The  Chairman:  I did  not  hear  that. 

A.  (Continuing).  I said  about  70  per 
cent,  of  the  mine  workers  in  the  Unit- 
ed States  are  members  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America;  but  my  statement 
that  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
were  paid  up  members  would  have  to  be 
explained,  the  two  statements  are  contra- 
dictory. We  have  a very  large  member- 
ship that  we  have  no  record  of  on  our 
national  books. 

Have  Some  Dodgers. 

By  Mr.  Darrow:  Q.  You  carry  only 

paid-up  members  on  your  national  books? 
A.  Yes.  We  only  carry  the  membership 
that  the  local  unions  pay  us  up;  in  other 
words,  we  have  in  the  labor  movement 
like  you  have  among  property  owners 
some  tax  dodgers. 

Q.  And  that  accounts  for  that.  Now,  Mr. 
Mitchell,  how  many  orders  or  bodies  are 
there  in  the  anthracite  coal  field?  How 


many  separate  organizations?  A.  There 
are  three  district  organizations  and  about 
350  local  unions.  Q.  Do  you  know  about 
what  proportion  of  coal  mined  in  the 
United  States  is  mined  in  Pennsylvania? 
A.  About  51  per  cent,  of  all  the  coal 
mined  in  the  United  States,  both  anthra- 
cite and  bituminious. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  anthracite 
mine  workers  are  members  of  your  organ- 
ization? A.  About  90  per  cent.  Q.  What 
was  the  name  of  their  organization  up  to 
the  time  they  came  into  the  United  Mine 
Workers?  A.  It  was  District  135,  Na- 
tional Trades  assembly  135,  Knights  of 
Labor. 

Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  in  the  bituminous  coal 
fields  has  your  organization  contracts 
with  the  owners?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  In 
what  states?  A.  In  Arkansas,  Kansas, 
Missouri,  Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio, 
Western  and  Central  Pennsylvania,  Mich- 
igan, Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Alabama, 
parts  of  Indian  territory  and  parts  of 
Colorado. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  your  first  con- 
tracts with  mine  operators  in  the  bitum- 
inous region?  A.  The  first  joint  contracts 
that  were  made  in  recent  years  were 
made  in  the  spring  of  1898.  Q.  How  long 
since  there  has  been  any  general  strike 
or  any  extended  strike  in  the  bitumin- 
ous region?  A.  In  1897  there  was  a gen- 
eral strike  through  the  south  coal  fields. 
Q.  Has  there  been  any  strike  of  any  im- 
portance since  the  contract  has  been 
made?  A.  Not  in  any  state  where  con- 
tracts were  made.  There  may  have  been 
some  strikes  of  c?>risiderable'  magnitude 
in  states  where  there  were  no  contracts. 
Q.  For  how  long  have  your  contracts  ex- 
isted? A.  From  year  to  year,  one  year  at 
a time.  Q.  What  date  do  you  make  them? 
A.  We  make  them  between  the  first  of 
February  and  the  first  of  April.  They  go 
into  effect  on  the  first  of  April.  Q.  By 
joint  conference  between  the  owners  and 
the  organization?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  Have 
you  had  any  difficulty  with  it  since  1898? 
A.  We  have  never  had  any  disagreements 
except  in  the  state  of  Michigan.  At  each 
conference  we  have  made  an  agreement. 

Q.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  or- 
ganization and  your  joint  contracts  upon 
the  wages  of  the  miners  in  the  bitumin- 
ous region?  A.  The  miners’  wages  have 
increased  materially.  Q.  How  much  have 
they  increased  since  1898,  roughly  speak- 
ing? A.  An  average  of  fifty  per  cent.  Q. 
What  effect  has  it  had  upon  hours?  A. 
There  has  been  a reduction  of  two  hours 
a day.  From  ten  hours  to  eight  hours. 
Q.  Is  the  eight-heur  day  general  in  the 
bituminous  region?  A.  With  few  excep- 
tions, that  day  rules  in  all  the  states. 
Q.  Has  it  had  any  effect  on  the  employ- 
ment of  children?  A.  Yes.  Q.  And  the 
safety  of  mines?  A.  It  has  reduced  the 
number  of  children  employed.  and 
through  the  organization  of  miners,  bet- 
ter mining  laws  have  been  enacted  and 
the  laws  more  thoroughly  enforced. 

The  Two  Fields. 

Q.  As  to  mining,  what  is  required  as  to 
skill  and  experience  to  make  a good 
miner?  A.  In  the  anthracite  fields?  Q. 
In  the  anthracite  field.  Take  both  of 
them.  A.  In  the  bituminous  field  it  does 
not  require  a very  high  degre  of  skill; 
in  fact,  there  is  no  law  in  the  bitumin- 
ous fields  that  restricts  the  employment 
of  men  skilled  as  miners.  A person  who 
has  never  worked  in  a mine  may  go  into 
a bituminous  mine  and  start  at  once  lo 
mine  coal.  In  the  anthracite  fields,  the 
laws  provide  that  an  applicant  for  a posi- 


tion as  miner  must  have  had  two  years' 
experience  as  a mine  laborer.  He  is  re- 
quired to  answer  a list  of  questions, 
showing  him  to  be  a practical  and  ex- 
perienced man,  having  technical  knowl- 
edge, etc.  Q.  Independent  of  the  law, 
Mr.  Mitchell,  as  a matter  of  fact,  does 
it  require  experience  and  training  to  be 
a miner?  A.  The  anthracite  miners  all 
tell  me  that  it  requires  a great  deal  of 
skill,  that  it  is  extremely  hazardous  and 
requires  a high  degre  of  skill. 

Q.  Generally  speaking,  tvhat  do  you  say 
about  the  hazard  of  the  mining  business? 
A.  It  is  extremely  hazardous;  it  Is  the 
most  hazardous  employment  in  the 
United  States  in  any  important  industry. 
Q.  How  is  it  as  to  health?  A.  It  is  ex- 
tremely unhealthy.  Q.  In  what  way  does 
it  affect  the  health  of  the  miners?  A. 
Usually  in  attacks  of  miners'  asthma— 
a disease  peculiar  to  men  who  work  m 
anthracite  coal  mines.  Q.  Do  you  know 
anything  about  the  statistics  or  reports 
upon  the  question  as  to  the  number  who 
have  miners’  asthma?  A.  No;  I under- 
stand that  every  miner  has  it  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree. 

Q.  You  are  not  informed  as  to  the 
fatalities?  A.  The  report  of  the  inspec- 
tor of  the  Pennsylvania  Bureau  of  Mines 
for  the  year  1900  shows  that  515  persons 
were  killed  in  the  anthracite  mines.  Q. 
And  do  you  know  about  the  accidents? 
A.  Twelve  hundred  non-fatal  accidents, 
I believe. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  possibilities  of  ob- 
taining insurance  for  miners?  A.  I have 
made  inquiry.  Q.  Through  -what  sources 
have  you  made  inquiry?  A.  From  the 
reputable  insurance  companies.  Q.  What 
have  you  learned  in  that  regard?  A. 
That  reputable  companies  will  not  insure 
miners.  Q.  Where  any  insurance  is 
granted  by  any  sort  of  companies,  what 
are  the  rates?  A.  They  are  very  high. 
One  company  would  charge  tw’enty-six 
dollars  for  carrying  an  insurance  policy 
of  five  hundred  dollars,  which  would 
mean  fifty-two  dollars  a year  to  carry 
one  thousand  dollars’  insurance.  This 
was  an  accident  policy. 

Not  So  Many  Deaths. 

Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  is  there  any  difference 
between  the  bituminous  regions  and  the 
hard  coal  regions, as  to  accidents?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  The  numer  of  deaths  in  the  bit- 
uminous fields  is  not  as  great  as  it  is  in 
the  anthracite  fields  in  proportion  to  the 
number  employed.  Q.  How  about  health? 
A.  Work  in  the  bituminous  mines  is  not 
as  unhealthful  as  work  in  the  anthra- 
cite mines.  Miners'  asthma  is  not  as 
prevalent.  Q.  How  do  wages  in  the  bit- 
uminous regions  compare  with  the  wages 
in  the  anthracite  regions  generally  speak- 
ing? A.  The  wrages  in  the  bituminous 
fields  are  generally  about  50  per  cent, 
higher— from  10  to  50  per  cent,  higher— 
than  some  classes  of  labor  in  the  anthra- 
cite fields,  and  20  to  30  for  other  classes 
of  labor.  That  is  particularly  true  of 
men  employed  by  the  day  or  by  the  hour. 
The  wages  of  men  who  work  by  contract 
are,  generally  speaking,  from  20  to  30  per 
cent,  higher  in  the  bituminous  fields  than 
they  are  in  the  anthracite  fields.  Q.  The 
mining  in  the  bituminous  regions  Is  done 
by  the  miners,  by  the  piece  or  by  the  ton 
or  car,  is  it,  as  a rule?  A.  In  the  bitum- 
inous fields  it  is  performed  by  the  ton. 
In  all  of  the  states  where  coal  is 
consumed  or  shipped  west,  2,000  pounds 
constitute  a ton.  in  those  states  ship- 
ping to  tide  water,  2.240  pounds  consti- 
tute a ton.  Q.  Now  axe  you  referring  to 


the  ton  for  which  the  miner  gets  paid? 
A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.How  does  the  general  condition  com- 
pare in  the  anthracite  and  bituminous  re- 
gions? A.  The  conditions  in  the  bitumin. 
ous  fields  are,  generally  speaking,  better 
than  in  the  anthracite  fields.  The  houses 
are,  on  the  whole,  better.  That  is  espe- 
cially true  of  houses  owned  by  the  coal 
companies. 

Q.  What  was  the  origin  of  the  recent 
strike?  A.  Failure  or  refusal  on  the  part 
of  the  companies  to  advance  wages  or  im. 
prove  conditions  of  employment,  or  re- 
fusal to  submit  the  issues  to  a board  of 
arbitration.  Q.  In  the  first  place,  what  I 
mean  is,  your  organization  had  some  agi- 
tation in  the  way  of  these  grievances  that 
they  afterwards  formulated?  A:  Yes,  sir. 
The  anthracite  mine  workers  have  been 
constantly  demanding  increased  wages 
and  improved  conditions  of  employment, 
asking  that  their  coal  be  weighed,  and  so 
forth.  Q.  In  a general  way,  this  agita- 
tion was  for  increased  wages,  either  by 
extra  money  or  by  shorter  hours?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  Shorter  hours  with  the  same 
pay;  and  for  a different  system  of  ascer- 
taining their  compensation,  by  weighing? 
A.  Weighing  their  coal,  and  some  meth- 
od whereby  the  grievances  that  arose 
from  time  to  time  might  be  adjusted 
without  forcing  them  to  engage  in  strikes. 
Q.  And  that  latter  meant  something  in 
the  waj'  of  recognition  of  the  union,  per- 
haps, to  put  it  that  way?  A.  Yes.  sir, 
they  preferred  to  have  that.  Q.  Or  con- 
tracting with  the  union?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
How  long  had  the  agitation  been  speci- 
ficially  proceeding  up  to  the  time  of  the 
strike?  A.  Well,  it  had  been  continuous 
as  far  as  I know,  or  as  far  back  as  I 
know  as  far  back  as  I have  known  the 
anthracite  miners.  Q.  There  had  always 
been  that  difficulty  here  and  those  claims 
made?  A.  Ever  since  I have  known  or 
them  Q.  How  long  have  you  known  of 
the  dissatisfaction  of  the  mine  workers 
with  reference  to  the  method  of  ascer- 
taining how  mucn  pay  they  should  have? 
A.  I have  known  of  it  of  my  own  infor- 
mation since  the  fall  of  1S9S.  Q.  And  that 
has,  generally  speaking,  crystallized  itself 
into  demand  for  payment  by  weight, 
has  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir;  as  far  as  they 
have  ever  given  expression  to  the  system 
they  wish  it  to  be  put  upon,  it  has  been 
w-eight.  Q.  Is  that  general  now,  in  the 
bituminous  fields?  A.  The  system  of  pay- 
ing by  weight  is  general  in  the  bitumin- 
ous fields. 

The  Principal  Reason. 

Q.  What  were  some  of  the  reasons, 
briefly,  advanced  by  the  men,  why  the 
companies  should  pay  by  weight?  A.  The 
principal  reason  advanced  by  the  miners 
is  that  payment  by  weight  is  the  only 
honest  method  of  determining  the  amount 
they  earn.  The  miners  know  and  believe 
that  they  are  not  paid  for  the  coal  they 
mine.  Q.  Has  there  been  any  claim  al- 
leged where  they  are  paid  by  car,  that 
the  size  of  those  cars  has  been  increased 
without  increasing  their  pay?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
The  miners  generally  complain  that’  the 
cars  themselves  have  been  made  larger 
within  recent  years,  and  that  there  has 
been  a constant  and  continuous  demand 
by  the  companies  that  the  miners  shall 
place  more  coal  in  the  cars;  in  other 
words,  they  shall  put  more  topping  on. 
The  question  of  topping  in  those  mines 
where  men  are  paid  by  cubical  measure, 
or  by  the  box,  rather,  has  been  a source 
of  more  trouble  than  any  one  thing  I 
Know  of,  Q.  Tell  us  what  you  mean  by 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

topping.  A.  The  companies  require  that 
the  miners  shall  have  a certain  amount 
of  topping  on  the  car  when  it  comes  to 
the  breaker.  That  is  to  say,  the  rule  may 
require  that  there  be  six  inches  of  cbal 
above  the  water  level  of  a car  when  it 
comes  to  the  breaker.  If  it  has  not  got 
six  inches  on  top  at  the  end  of  the  mine 
the  miner  is  docked.  Now  this  car 
is  sometimes  hauled  in  the  mine  a dis- 
tance of  a mile.  As  a consequence,  the 
coal  shakes  down  in  transit;  and  while 
the  miner  may  have  placed  six  Inches  on 
that  car  at  the  place  he  loaded  it.  when 
it  reaches  the  breaker  the  coal  has  settled 
down  or  has  been  knocked  off  the  car  in 
transit.  The  consequence  is  that  the 
miner  is  docked  for  failure  to  have  six 
inches  of  coal  or  whatever  the  rule  may 
be.  Q.  In  order  to  get  six  inches  on  the 
top  at  the  breaker,  the  car  has  to  travel 
a mile  or  two  or  three,  or  whatever  is  re- 
quired, and  they  must  place  more  than 
six  inches  on  top  at  the  end  of  the  mine? 
Is  that  what  you  mean?  A.  Yes,  sir;  it 
would  be  necessary,  because  the  coal 
would  settle  or  be  knocked  off.  Q.  And 
that  exact  amount  could  not  be  ascer- 
tained? A.  There  would  be  no  way  of  de- 
termining it  exactly.  If  they  place  a con- 
siderable amount,  more  than  six  inches  of 
topping  in  mines  where  that  would  be  re- 
quired, they'  simply  increase  tne  danger  or 
falling  off  or  being  knocked  off  on  its  way 
to  the  breaker.  Q.  Supposing  that  a 
miner  had  placed  so  much  coal  on  a.  car 
that  at  the  top  of  the  breaker  there  were 
seven  or  eight  or  ten  inches,  would  he 
get  anything  extra  for  that?  A.  No.  sir. 
Q.  He  is  simply  docked  if  he  has  less  than 
six?  That  is  as  you  understand  it?  A. 
That  is  my  information  about  tne  system. 
Q.  Has  that  been  a grievance  that  they 
have  had?  A.  Yes,  sir;  a very  serious 
grievance.  Q.  Well,  all  these  grievances, 
real  or  fancied,  whatever  they  were,  were 
brought  together  at  your  convention, 
were  they  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Efforts  at  Agreement. 

Here  Mr.  Mitchell  told  the  story  of 
the  strike  preliminaries  and  the  efforts 
to  effect  an  agreement  on  the  Shamokin 
demands  through  the  Civic  Federation. 
He  told,  among  other  things,  that  dur- 
ing the  strike  $1,500,000  was  distributed 
in  aid  to  the  strikers. 

Q.  Two  or  three  more  questions  and 
then  I shall  have  finished.  What  would 
you  say  as  to  the  ability,  on  account  of 
your  organization,  and  judged  by  your 
experience,  to  maintain  discipline  and  as- 
sist in  the  settlement  of  questions  and 
help  in  the  harmony  of  the  management 
of  the  coal  industry?  A.  I should  say 
that  our  experience  as  an  organization 
demonstrates  conclusively  that  discipline 
can  be  maintained  where  trade  agree- 
ments exist.  As  a matter  of  fact,  in 
those  states  where  we  have  trade  agree- 
ments, if  any  of  our  local  unions  were 
to  attempt  to  violate  the  agreement;  if 
they  refused  to  go  back  to  work  when 
we  instructed  them*  to  do  so,  we  would 
put  them  out  of  the  union.  We  would  re- 
voke their  charters.  Our  agreements 
take  precedence  to  our  laws.  If  our  laws 
were  in  conflict  with  the  trade  agree 
rnent,  the  trade  agreement  would  be 
given  precedence  and  we  would  set  the 
law  aside  rather  than  the  agreement. 
The  agreements  must  be  kept  inviolate. 
Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  some  complaint  has 
been  made,  and  I refer  to  it  for  that 
reason,  in  reference  to  the  strike  of 
pumpers  You  know  what  I refer  to,  do 


7 


you— pumping  men?  A.  Yes,  sir.  The 
steam  men  went  on  strike  on  June  2nd. 
The  miners'  strike  was  on  May  12th.  The 
instruction  to  the  steam  men  to  ask  for 
a reduction  in  the  hours  of  labor  was 
issued  on  May  21.  Q.  That  was  for  a 
reduction  to  eight  hours,  was  it?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  the  instruction  was  issued  some 
twelve  days  befoie  they  were  to  inaugur- 
ate a strike  if  the  companies  failed  to 
give  them  an  eight-hour  work-day.  They 
were  told  in  the  instruction  issued  that 
they  were  to  remain  at  work  and  protect 
the  properties  of  the  companies,  if  the 
companies  would  permit  them  to  work 
eight  hours  a day  without  any  reduction 
in  their  pay.  Q.  They  were  to  remain  at 
work  while  the  others  went  on  a strike? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  that  was  because  the 
pump  men  and  the  engineers  were  neces- 
sary to  keep  water  out  of  the  mines?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  matters  of  that  sort? 
A.  With  few  exceptions.  Some  few  in 
some  mines  have  granted  the  eight-hour 
day.  Q.  And  did  they  stay  at  work 
where  the  eight-hour  day  was  granted? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  One  other  matter  that  1 
overlooked,  Mr.  Mitchell.  Do  you  know 
anything  about  the  variety  of  contracts 
that  exist  in  this  region,  specifically,  and 
as  to  any  cause  of  complaint  on  that  ac- 
count? A.  Contracts?  Q.  That  is,  a var- 
iety in  the  payment  or  price  for  mining 
coal  and  the  method  in  which  it  is 
mined?  A.  Yes,  sir;  only  in  a general 
way,  that  all  the  companies  operating 
in  this  Lackawanna  and  Wyoming  re- 
gion pay  either  by  the  box,  by  the  car— 
by  what  is  called  a ton.  Q.  Is  it  uniform 
among  the  various  companies?  A.  No, 
sir;  it  is  varied.  Q.  State  whether  or  not 
that  has  been  one  of  the  causes  of  com- 
plaint. A.  It  has  made  it  impossible  for- 
the  men  working  to  determine  how  much 
coal  they  were  loading  for  the  amoun. 
they  were  receiving.  Q.  In  what  way? 
A.  They  could  not  determine  how  much 
coal  they  would  have  to  load,  because  or 
the  topping  required.  Q.  I refer  now  to 
the  question  as  to  whether  different 
companies  hav^  not  paid  different  rates 
of  wages  for  substantially  the  same 
work.  A.  I know  that  in  a general  way, 
and  by  comparing  the  pay,  the  state- 
ments issued  by  the  companies.  Q.  Mr 
Mitchell,  you  referred  to  the  question  of 
a local  violating  any  agreement,  and 
stated  in  that  event  their  charter  would 
be  revoked?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  What  about 
other  men  who  continued  to  work? 
Would  other  union  men  continue  to 
work?.  A.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I think  that  is  all  that 
occurs  to  me  now. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION". 

Mr.  Willcox  began  the  cross-examina- 
tion about  twenty  minutes  before  the 
noon  recess  was  taken  and  continued  it 
during  the  two  hours  of  the  afternoon 
session. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  how 
long  did  you  act  as  a bituminous  miner? 
A.  Thirteen  years.  Q.  And  was  it  con- 
tinuous? A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  At  what  time, 
would  you  mind  telling?  A.  I started 
when  I was  between  12  and  13  years  of 
age,  until  1 was  about  26  years  of  age. 
Q.  Have  you  done  anything  else  except 
to  act  as  an  official  of  this  organization? 
A.  I have  not  performed  any  work  out- 
side of  that,  since  that  time.  I worked 
before  that  time,  however,  on  a farm, 
when  I was  ten  years  of  age.  Q.  I thougnt 
you  had  studied  law?  A.  I did  at  night, 
when  I came  home  from  work  in  the 


8 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


mines.  Q.  I thought  you  were  a profes- 
sional brother?  A.  I have  never  been  ad- 
mitted to  the  bar,  however. 

Q.  The  mine  workers’  union  is  a volun- 
tary association,  as  I understand  it?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  it  is  not  incorporated 
in  any  state  or  anywhere?  A.  It  is  not 
an  incorporated  organization,  but  is  or- 
ganized the  same  as  all  other  labor 
unions.  Q.  When  did  these  anthracile 
miners  first  come  into  it,  did  you  say? 
A.  They  were  formed  of  the  members 
of  District  assembly,  135,  which  joined 
with  the  Miners’  Progressive  union  in 
making  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America.  Q.  How  many  of  them  were 
in  that  District  135,  do  you  know?  A.  no, 
sir;  I do  not  know  how  many  were  in 
here.  Q.  It  was  quite  a small  number, 
was  it  not?  A.  I could  not  say.  I might 
say,  both  of  these  two  national  unions 
that  joined  together  only  had  a few  thou- 
sand. Q.  What  I mean  to  get  at  is  this; 
so  far  as  this  organization  of  Knights  of 
Labor  is  concerned,  it  had  practically  ex- 
pired, had  it  not?  A.  I cannot  answer 
the  question  accurately,  but  1 under- 
stand that  a considerable  number  of  its 
total  membership  were  anthracite  mine 
workers.  Q.  Of  this  particular  district 
assembly,  or  what?  A.  Yes,  sir;  of  No. 
135.  Q.  You  do  not  know  what  the  total 
membership  was?  A.  I do  not. 

Q.  Now,  I understand  that  under  the 
constitution  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
the  convention  in  their  body  has  power 
to  order  a strike  in  all  the  coal-produc- 
ing regions,  is  not  that  so?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Has  the  national  executive  board  tnat 
power  also?  A.  They  have  that  authority 
given  them  by  the  law,  but  they  cannot 
do  it  in  violation  of  any  existing  con  - 
tracts.  Q.  Why  not?  A.  Because  the 
contracts  themselves  are  superior  to  our 
law.  Q.  Do  you  mean  by  virtue  of  any 
definite  provision?  A.  No,  by  virtue  of 
the  policy  and  precedents  established  by 
the  organization.  Q.  But  so  far  as  the 
constitution  is  concerned,  the  executive 
board  has  the  power  to  order  a strike? 
A.  That  is  our  law.  Q.  Now,  I under- 
stand that  a convention  must  be  called 
on  the  application  of  five  districts?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  that  such  convention 
may  order  a general  suspension  of  work 
everywhere?  A.  It  may,  except  in  the 
event  of  agreements  existing  between  the 
oprators  and  miners.  Q.  How  many 
districts  are  there?  A.  There  are  eigh- 
teen districts.  Q.  There  are  eighteen  dis- 
tricts, and  only  three  of  them  are  anthra- 
cite districts?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  each 
district  elects  one  member  of  the  board, 
does  it?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  There  is  a great 
deal  of  difference  as  to  the  size  of  the 
districts,  as  to  membership.  I u nder- 
stand?  A.  Yes,  a very  great  difference. 
Q.  For  instance,  in  Michigan,  I believe, 
there  are  only  two  or  three  thousand.  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  in  those  three  dis- 
tricts, you  say  there  are  one  hundred  and 
ten  thousand?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  But  the 
power  is  divided  according  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  members;  that  is,  the  district 
representatives?  A.  No,  each  district  is 
given  one  member  on  the  board.  Q.  Yes, 
A.  However,  in  our  conventions  their  vot- 
ing power  is  in  accordance  with  the  num- 
ber of  members.  Q.  But  in  the  national 
board,  for  the  purpose  of  calling  a con- 
vention, for  instance,  the  state  of  Michi- 
gan would  have  as  much  power  as  this 
District  No.  1 here,  would  it  not?  A. 
That  is  true.  Q.  And  the  powers  of  the 
body  generally  between  conventions  are 
exercised  by  the  national  board?  A.  No, 
sir,  Q,  Is  that  so?  A.  The  law  provides 


that  they  shall  have  power  between  con- 
ventions, but  the  regulation  of  a district 
is  by  the  district  executive  board,  which 
is  empowered  to  make  laws  for  its  own 
government.  Q.  Yes,  but  does  not  the 
national  board  have  power  over  the  dis- 
trict board?  A.  It  has  power  to  inaugur- 
ate a strike. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  disciplining  the  miners 
for  violating  contracts?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
Is  there  anything  in  the  constitution  in 
regard  to  that?  O.  No,  sir,  except  that 
the  officers  are  empowered  to  exercise 
supervision  over  the  workings  of  the  or- 
ganization everywhere.  Q.  Yes?  A.  And 
under  that  our  district  constitutions  in 
some  states  do  make  provision  for  re- 
voking or  disciplining  the  members,  ap- 
plying penalties  and  fines  and  so  forth. 
Q.  Have  you  got  the  district  constitutions 
of  this  particular  region?  A.  I have  not 
got  them  right  with  me.  I am  trying  to 
get  some  which  will  be  furnished  when 
they  arrive.  Q.  Do  they  have  any  such 
provision  in  them?  A.  I do  not  recall 
that  they  have.  There  have  been  no 
agreements  in  these  districts.  Q.  And  are 
there  any  provisions  in  the  constitution 
regarding  the  enforcement  or  carrying 
out  of  the  contracts?  A.  There  are  in  the 
agreements;  yes  sir.  Q.  I know,  but  are 
there  any  such  provisions  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  body?  A.  Of  the  national 
organization?  Q.  Yes?  No,  there  are 
none.  It  is  provided  by  agreement  with 
the  operator.  Q.  The  only  provision  there 
is  on  the  subject  is  contained  in  the  agree- 
ment itself?  That  is  right?  A.  The  pro- 
vision is  in  the  agreement  itself;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  does  your  constitution  provide 
in  regard  to  sympathetic  strikes?  Any- 
thing? A.  There  is  no  provision  at  all  in 
it,  except  that  in  a case  where  a strike  in 
one  disti'ict  might  have  the  effect  of  low- 
ering the  wages  in  another  district.  Then 
the  organization  would  have  power  to  ex- 
tend the  strike  so  as  to  protect  the  men 
whose  wages  would  be  affected  by  a fail- 
ure in  the  first  district.  Q.  Now, perhaps,  I 
had  better  read  the  provision.  Section  4 
of  article  10:  “National  officers  shall,  at 
any  time  they  deem  it  to  the  best  inter- 
ests of  mine  workers  in  a district  that  is 
idle,  have  power  for  just  and  sufficient 
reasons,  to  order  a suspension  in  any  oth- 
er district  or  districts,  that  would  in  any 
way  impede  the  settlement  in  the  district 
affected;  provided  that  such  action  would 
serve  to  the  best  interests  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America.”  That  is  the 
provision  is  it  not? 

A.  Yes  sir.  That  provision  is  to  be  en- 
forced in  the  event  of  one  company  oper- 
ating mines  in  one  district  where  they 
might  attempt  to  reduce  wages — in  which 
there  would  be  no  agreement  always— by 
continuing  operations  in  other  mines  in 
another  district.  That  power  is  invested 
In  the  executive  board,  so  that  they 
might  stop  the  mines  of  the  company  in 
both  districts;  always  with  the  condition, 
however,  there  is  no  agreement  existing 
in  either  of  them. 

Q.  That  statement  of  yours  does  not 
seem  to  be  contained  in  this  section. 

A.  What  statement  is  that? 

Q.  That  which  you  have  just  made. 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  purpose  of  it. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  That  is  what  I am  trying 
to  explain;  just  what  our  laws  mean. 

By  Mr.  Willcox: 

Q.  That  is  not  contained  in  the  section 
Itself,  is  it?  Thos  is  a statement  of  your 
own  as  to  the  purpose  of  that  section,  is 
it  not,  Mr.  Mitchell? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  that  is  what  it  means, 
because  in  our  organization  the  president 


of  the  organization  determines  what  the 
law  means,  and  a decision  as  to  what  the 
law'  means  in  our  organization  makes  it 
the  law.  That  is,  the  laws  are  inter- 
preted in  that  way. 

Q.  So  that,  as  you  testify,  the  law  is  be- 
ing made,  is  it? 

A.  I have  just  given  you  what  that  law 
means. 

Q.  Yes,  so  that  as  you  speak,  the  law  is 
being  made,  as  you  are  president  of  the 
organization?  (Laughter). 

A.  No,  not  necessarily;  but  the  con- 
struction or  meaning  of  our  laws  is  de- 
termined by  its  chief  officers. 

D.  Does  the  constitution  give  them  any 
such  power  as  that?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
Where  is  that?  A.  Under  "The  duties  of 
the  president.”  Q.  Can  you  point  that 
cut  to  me?  A.  See  if  you  iind  this  lan- 
guage: ‘He  shall  decide  all  disputes  as 
to  the  meaning  of  this  constitution.” 

The  Chairman:  Perhaps  you  can  take 
the  constitution,  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  point 
it  out  to  the  commission. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Yes;  I have  it  here,  I 
think. 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  portion  of  the  consti- 
tution you  are  looking  for  is  at  the  bot- 
tom of  page  6,  or  the  top  of  page  7,  I 
think,  Mr.  Mitchell. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Yres;  I find,  Mr.  Willcox, 
that  you  have  not  been  reading  from  our 
constitution. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  I have  not  had  the 
pleasure  of  having  one  furnished  to  me. 
Have  you  it  now?  A.  Yes.  Q.  The  one 
I had  is  not  up  to  date?  A.  No;  I will 
furnish  you  with  one  of  our  constitu- 
tions as  soon  as  I can  get  some  copies. 
Q.  Have  you  the  right  place?  A.  It 
reads:  “He  shall  devote  his  time  and  at- 
tention to  the  affairs  of  the  union;  decide 
all  questions  in  dispute  concerning  the 
meaning  of  the  constitution,  and  exer- 
cise the  duties  of  the  president.” 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  Q.  Suppose  a man 
violates  an  agreement,  and  the  constitu- 
tions contains  no  provision  regarding  his 
expulsion  for  that  reason,  do  you  think 
that  would  constitute  a dispute  arising 
■which  you  would  have  the  power  to  de- 
cide? A.  If  a person  had  violated  this 
law,  do  you  mean?  Q.  If  a person  had 
not  violated  the  constitution,  but  had 
violated  an  agreement.  A.  If  he  had  vio- 
lated an  agreement,  we  would  have  au- 
thority to  tu  n him  out.  Q.  You  think 
you  wTould?  A.  Y'es,  sir.  Q.  Although 
there  is  nothing  of  the  kind  in  the  con- 
stitution except  that  you  have  the  right 
to  decide  disputes  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  constitution?  A.  Yes,  sir.  But  he 
wmuld  not  be  turned  out  because  the 
language  of  the  constitution  provides  for 
his  punishment  in  that  way.  We  would 
do  it  because  that  is  the  established 
policy  of  the  organization,  as  it  is  of 
nearly  all  trades  unions.  Q.  Well,  it  i9 
outside  the  constitution  then,  is  it  not? 
A.  Usually  the  process  of  enforcing  the 
agreement  is  a part  of  the  agreement 
itself.  Q.  The  constitution  contains  no 
provision  to  turn  a man  out  because  he 
violates  an  agreement,  does  it?  A.  Not 
specifically,  but  it  does  confer  power  on 
its  officers  to  exercise  supervision  under 
it.  Q.  To  decide  disputes  as  to  its  mean- 
ing? A.  Y’es,  sir. 

Q.  Now  you  remember  the  Indianapolis 
convention  of  July  18,  1902? 

A.  Y’es.  sir. 

Q.  That  was  called  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  whether  there  should  be  a 
national  suspension  of  coal  mining,  was 
it  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


9 


Q.  And  it  had  the  power  to  consider 
that? 

A.  It  had  the  power  to  consider  it;  yes, 
sir. 

Q.  And  the  bituminous  miners  could  at 
any  time  order  a strike  in  the  anthra- 
cite region,  although  none  of  the  anthra- 
cite miners  wanted  it,  could  they  not? 

A.  They  could  not  do  so  without  vio- 
lating their  agreements. 

Q.  No,  but  I do  not  think  you  catch 
my  question.  I say  the  bituminous 
miners  could  order  a strike  in  the  an- 
thracite regions,  although  the  anthracite 
people  did  not  want  it? 

A.  No.  sir.. 

Q.  Why  not? 

A.  Oh,  no.  A convention  of  bituminous 
men  could  not  order  a strike  of  anthra- 
cite men. 

Q.  I am  asking  about  the  national  con 
vention. 

A.  A national  convention  would  have 
authority  to  determine  that  there  should 
be  a national  strike. 

Q.  Yes. 

A.  But  they  could  not  do  that  where 
they  had  agreements. 

Q.  Although  the  anthracite  people  were 
opposed  to  it,  the  bituminous  people 
might  enforce  it? 

A.  They  could  not  make  a man  go  and 
strike.  (Laughter.) 

At  this  juncture  recess  was  taken  for 
luncheon. 

The  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell was  resumed  at  2.10  without  any- 
thing intervening. 

By  Mr.  Willcox: 

Q.  Taking  up  for  a moment  what  we 
were  at  when  the  commission  took  a re- 
cess, do  you  remember  publishing  a state- 
ment of  this  character  on  or  about  May 
16,  1802,  in  reference  to  the  Indianapolis 
convention,  referring  to  the  proceedings 
of  the  Hazleton  convention  of  May  to 
which  you  testified  at  this  morning's  ses- 
sion; that  the  convention  directed  the  na- 
tional officers  to  call  for  a national  con- 
vention of  all  miners  employed  m tne 
United  States  for  the  purpose  of  consider- 
ing the  situation  in  the  anthracite  fields. 
(Reading)  “If  the  desire  of  the  anthra- 
cite miners  is  sustained  a national  sus- 
pension of  coal  miners  will  be  inaugurat- 
ed.’’ That  was  signed  by  yourself.  Do 
you  remember  that?  A.  1 recall  the  state- 
ment substantially  as  you  read  it;  I can- 
not say  that  is  the  language  of  my  state- 
ment. 

Q.  That  is  substantially  the  language? 
A.  That  is  a newspaper  statement,  1 be- 
lieve. Q.  I read  that  from  the  Scranton 
Tribune.  A.  Yes.  it  may  be  exactly  cor- 
rect. I do  not  recall  the  exact  language. 
I have  a copy  of  it,  however.  Q.  It  pur- 
ports to  be  signed  by  you?  O.  As  I sajq 
it  may  be  correct;  I am  not  sure  of  it.  Q. 
As  I understand  it,  the  workers  in  the 
bituminous  field  are  under  contract?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  you  say  those  contracts 
are  superior  to  the  constitution?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  Q.  ITow,  then,  could  that  convention 
have  considered  the  question  of  inaugur- 
ating a national  suspension — A.  It  did 
not  inaugurate  a national  s’uspension — Q. 
Excuse  me  until  I finish  my  question. 
(Continuing).  If  the  majority  of  the 
members  were  under  contracts  and  the 
contracts  prevail  over  the  constitution 
how  could  it  consider  the  question  at  all? 
A.  It  did  not  consider  it,  because  by  a 
unanimous  vote  it  decided  they  would  not 
inaugurate  a national  suspension.  Q.  But 
your  call  says  it  is  going  to  consider  it? 
A.  It  has  a right  to  meet  under  our  iaw 


for  the  purpose  of  consideration;  but 
under  our  agreements  they  could  not  call 
a national  suspension,  and  they  did  not  do 
it  for  that  reason. 

Q.  It  was  called,  then,  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  considering  that  it  could  not 
call  a national  suspension?  A.  It  was 
called  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the 
application  of  the  anthracite  coal  miners 
that  a sympathetic  strike  be  inaugurated 
in  the  bituminous  coal  fields.  The  con- 
vention, by  unanimous  vote,  decided  that 
they  would  not  inaugurate  a sympathetic 
strike,  the  anthracite  miners'  delegates, 
voting  with  the  bituminous  miners  in  op- 
position to  that  policy. 

Q.  My  point  is  this,  that  here  was  a 
convention,  which  under  your  statement 
was  called  for  the  purpose  of  considering 
the  question  of  a national  suspension,  ana 
you  now  say  that  they  had  no  power  to 
decide  in  favor  of  such  a suspension. 

A.  No,  not  under  our  agreements  with 
the  coal  operators. 

Q.  What  was  the  object  in  calling  the 
convention,  why  did  you  not  tell  them  at 
the  Hazleton  convention  that  the  national 
convention  would  have  no  suen  power? 

A.  I had  mjr  own  reasons  tor  not  telling 
them.  They  knew  it.  The  real  purpose  of 
the  national  convention  was  carried  and 
fifteen  hundred  thousand  dollars  was  got- 
ten from  them  to  help  sustain  these  an- 
thracite men  while  they  were  on  the 
strike. 

Q.  But  that  purpose  is  not  stated  in  the 
call  at  all?  A.  The  purpose  of  the  conven- 
tion was  to  consider  the  advisability  of 
the  strike  of  the  anthracite  miners, 
among  other  things,  the  wish  of  the  an- 
thracite men  to  have  it  extended  into 
other  fields  and  that  was  not  its  only  pur- 
pose. 

Q.  When  you  spoke  at  the  opening  of 
the  Indianapolis  convention,  did  you  not 
speak  of  it  as  a convention  called  for  the 
purpose  of  considering  the  suspension  of 
work? 

A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  The  anthracite  districts,  as  I under- 
stand, have  only  three  representatives, 
out  of  a total  of  twenty-one,  on  the  na- 
tional board? 

A.  They  have  only  three  representatives 
on  the  national  executive  board. 

Q.  And  how  many  are  there  on  the 
board? 

A.  Twenty-one  altogether,  including  tilt 
national  officers  themselves. 

Q.  Let  me  call  your  attention  again  to 
this  section  of  the  constitution,  Article 
10,  section  4,  which  was  read  before  the 
recess:  “The  national  officers  shall  at 

any  time  they  deem  it  to  the  best  inter- 
ests of  mine  workers  in  a district  that 
is  idle  for  just  and  sufficient  reasons,  or- 
der a suspension  in  other  district  or 
districts  that  would  in  any  way  impede 
the  interests  of  the  district  affected.” 
Mow,  suppose  that  there  was  a strike  in 
the  Western  Pennsylvania  bituminous 
district,  and  it  should  turn  out  to  be  the 
fact  that  anthracite  coal  vras  going 
there,  could  not  the  national  officers  or- 
der a strike  in  the  anthracite  districts? 

A.  No,  they  could  not.  The  purpose  of 
that  law  can  only  be  understood  by  ex- 
plaining what  it  was  intended  to  ao.  I 
might  more  clearly  illustrate  what  would 
be  done  under  these  circumstances  by 
reading  from  our  agreements.  For  in- 
stance, this  is  in  substance  the  same 
agreement  that  we  have  in  every  dis- 
trict; it  is  the  Illinois  agreement.  I will 
read  from  this:  ‘This  contract  is  in  no 

case  to  be  set  aside  because  of  any  rules 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America 


now  in  force,  or  which  shall  hereafter  be 
adopted;  nor  is  this  contract  to  be  set 
aside  by  reason  of  any  provision  of  their 
national,  state  or  local  constitutions.” 

The  provision  you  have  reference  to,  Mr. 
Willcox,  is  intended  to  apply  only  to  an 
emergency  of  this  character— that  if  one 
company  operated  mines  in  different  dis- 
tricts and  they  were  to  attempt  to  de- 
press wages  in  one  district  while  supply- 
ing their  own  contracts  and  trade  from 
another,  then  the  organization  claims  the 
right,  in  the  absence  of  contracts,  to  ex- 
tend the  strike  into  the  mines  operated 
by  that  company,  regardless  of  what  dis- 
trict those  mines  are  located  in. 

Q.  That  does  not  seem  to  be  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  section.  A.  It  may  appear 
not;  "but  I am  explaining  what  the  pur- 
pose of  the  section  is.  Q.  The  constitu- 
tion requires  a good  deal  of  construction, 
does  it  not?  A.  That  is  true  of  every  con- 
stitution. Even  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Q.  Were  there  any  con- 
tracts in  existence  at  the  time  this  con- 
stitution was  adopted?  A.  Yes.  sir.  Q. 
Which  ones?  A.  This  constitution  that 
you  have  reference  to  now  was  revised 
in  the  year  1902— last  January.  There 
have  been  some  changes  made  in  our 
law  at  each  annual  convention.  At  the 
time  the  organization  was  originally 
formed,  there  were  no  contracts  that  I 
know  of.  Q.  That  is,  when  the  consti- 
tution was  first  adopted,  of  course?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  but  I am  not  sure  that  the 
constitution  is  at  all  similar  now  to 
what  it  was  then.  I do  not  know  about 
that.  Q.  Do  you  know  whether  there  has 
been  any  change  in  that  particular  sec- 
tion? A.  I do  not.  Q.  There  has  not  been 
any  that  you  recall?  A.  I don’t  know 
anything  of  it,  because  1 was  not  a dele- 
gate at  the  early  conventions. 

At  this  point  Mr.  Willcox  read  the  ex- 
cerpts from  Mr.  Mitchell’s  testimony 
before  the  industrial  commission,  re- 
ferred to  above. 

Following  this  Mr.  Mitchell  was 
asked  if  he  had  figured  out  how  much 
the  granting  of  the  demands  of  the 
Hazleton  convention  in  1900  would  in- 
crease the  cost  of  mining.  He  replied 
that  he  understood  it  would  be  about  20 
per  cent. 

“Would  it  surprise  you,  if  you  were 
told  the  increase  in  cost  of  labor  alone 
would  be  70  per  cent?”  Mr.  ’Willcox 
asked. 

Mr.  Mitchell  said  he  had  not  done  the 
figuring.  That  work  was  done  by  a 
committee  of  the  anthracite  miners.  He 
admitted  the  strike  was  settled  upon 
the  granting  of  a horizontal  increase  of 
10  per  cent,  in  wages. 

Then  the  examination  proceeded,  as 
follows: 

Q.  Now,  what  methods  were  adopted 
for  the  purpose  of  gettiifg  the  men  out  in 
that  strike,  as  you  had  only  eight  thou- 
sand when  it  began? 

A.  The  officers  of  the  organization  and 
the  mine  workers  who  were  employed 
held  metings  and  asked  the  men  to  come 
out.  They  were  notified  through  the 
newspapers  that  a certain  day  was  set  for 
the  strike,  as  decided  by  their  convention, 
and  they  came  out  on  strike  in  accordance 
with  that  notice. 

Q.  Were  there  not  various  marches 
around?  A.  Yes,  in  some  parts,  the  men 
were  out  marching,  and  held  meetings 

with  men  at  other  places.  Q.  And  you 


10 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


went  around  and  made  speeches  yourself? 
A.  I held  three  or  four  meetings  during 
the  entire  strike.  Q.  I believe  it  is  a mat- 
ter of  history  that  you  held  two  of  them 
at  the  Markle  operation,  is  it  not?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  I held  two  meteings  in  that  part 
of  the  region,  one,  I believe,  at  the  Markle 
property. 

Q.  You  made  a statement  in  regard  to 
the  number  of  men  now  enrolled.  I do 
not  know  whether  I caught  that  correctly. 
Will  you  just  repeat  it?  A.  1 said  that 
there  were  approximately  110,000  or  120,000 
of  the  anthracite  men  in  the  organization. 
Q.  Can  you  state  how  many  of  them  are 
under  age,  minors,  minor  children?  A.  I 
understand  that  there  are  employed  in 
the  anthracite  mines  about  21,000  persons 
under  21  years  of  age.  Q.  Do  they  be- 
long to  unions?  A.  Yes,  sir;  most  of  them 
do.  We  have  a separate  branch  for  boys 
under  16  to  belong  to,  so  that  they  will 
not  have  control  of  our  metings,  a juve- 
nile branch.  Q.  Over  16  years  of  age, 
they  have  a right  to  vote,  have  they  not? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  under  16,  a half  a 
vote?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  state  how  many  of  the  mem- 
bers are  miners  and  how  many  laborers? 
A.  There  are  some  37,000  miners  and  26,000 
miners’  laborers. 

Q.  How  gre  votes  ordinarily  taken  in 
the  locals?  A.  Ordinarily  by  a show  of 
hands  or  a yea  and  nay  vote.  Q.  Some 
times  by  tellers,  I suppose?  A.  They  may 
be.  That  I do  not  know.  We  have  no  es- 
tablished rule.  They  are  permitted  to 
vote  as  they  decide  themselves. 

Q.  Do  these  demands  that  you  are  mak- 
ing now  contemplate  any  increase  to  the 
miners'  laborers?  A.  Yes,  an  increase  of 
20  per  cent.  Q.  In  their  pay,  or  a reduc- 
tion in  their  hours?  A.  In  their  pay.  Q. 
And  a reduction  of  their  hours,  too?  A 
The  demand  for  a 20  per  cent,  increase  of 
wages  is  applcable  to  the  miner  and  his 
laborer.  Q.  The  question  of  hours  for 
the  miners’  laborers,  then,  does  not  enter 
into  this  controversy?  A.  the  miners' 
laborer  would  necessarily  stop  at  eight 
hours  if  the  breaker  stopped  and  the  mine 
stopped.  Q.  That  is  the  way  you  reach 
it?  A.  That  is  what  we  think  will  be 
the  result  of  it.  We  have  not  said  how 
long  the  miner  or  his  laborer  shall  work, 
however,  except  that  if  an  eight-hour 
agreement  were  made,  then  they  would 
each  have  to  work  eight  hours. 

Q.  Of  the  present  enrollment  have  you 
stated  how  many  are  anthracite  and  how 
many  bituminous,  or  can  you  state?  A. 
I say  that  the  paid-up  membership  of  the 
organization  is  approximately  250,000,  on 
the  only  record  which  we  have,  of  which 
number  110,000  or  120,000  would  now  be  an- 
thracite mine  workers.  Q.  But  at  the 
Wilkes-Barre  convention,  the  last  conven- 
tion, you  voted  on  a basis  of  86,500  mem- 
bers in  good  standing,  did  you  not?  A.  I 
do  not  know  that  we  had  any  way  of  de- 
termining what  the  membership  in  good 
standing  was.  The  vote  was  taken  on  the 
membership  as  shown  by  our  books  prior 
to  the  strike.  Owing  to  the  fact  that 
there  was  a strike,  dues  were  not  paid  to 
the  district  organizations,  or  to  the  local 
union,  and  consequently  there  was  no 
record  in  the  district  of  the  increase  in 
membership. 

Q.  Yes.  What  methods  do  you  adopt  to 
prevent  interference  of  non-union  men 
where  union  and  non-union  men  are 
working  in  the  same  operation?  A.  Well, 
ordinarily,  in  the  bituminous  fields  all  the 
mine  workers  in  the  states  where  they 
have  contracts  are  members  of  the  or- 
ganization, In  parts  of  Central  Penn- 


sylvania and  in  "Western  Pennsylvania, 
they  are  not.  They  work  together  in  har- 
mony. There  is  no  difficulty  between 
them.  The  organization  tries  by  persua- 
sion to  have  the  non-unionists  come  into 
the  organization.  In  the  anthracite  fields 
they  work  the  same  way.  Q.  There  is 
no  definite  method  of  preventing  inter- 
ference? A.  Nothing  has  been  done  on 
that  subject  particularly.  There  is 
generally  no  interference  and  consequent- 
ly no  necessity  of  having  laws  to  prevent 
it.  Q.  Now,  you  know  there  have  been 
a good  many  resolutions  on  that  subject 
in  the  anthracite  region,  do  you  not?  A. 
Yes,  I know  there  have  been  resolutions 
adopted  in  the  anthracite  field.  Q.  Let 
me  read  you  a few.  I read  what  pur- 
ports to  be  an  extract  from  the  proceed- 
ings of  a convention  of  District  No.  1, 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  Jan- 
uary 14th,  loth  and  16th,  1901.  at  Edwards- 
ville,  Luzerne  county,  Pennsylvania.  It 
reads  as  follows:  “Regularly  moved  and 
seconded,  that  it  becomes  compulsory  on 
the  men  of  any  mine  employed  in  and 
around  the  mines,  to  become  a member 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 
Carried.”  Have  you  any  knowledge  about 
that?  A.  I have  no  knowledge  of  it;  I was 
not  at  the  convention.  Q.  You  have  heard 
of  it,  have  you  not?  A.  I have  not  heard 
specially  of  that  resolution.  I have 
heard  of  various  resolutions  of  that 
character. 

Q.  What  action  have  you  taken  about 
them;  anything?  A.  They  were  never  en- 
forced that  I ever  know  of.  They  were 
passed  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the 
companies  from  discharging  men  because 
they  belonged  to  the  union.  The  com- 
panies had  at  various  places  adopted  a 
policy  of  opposition  to  the  organization, 
and  the  members  of  the  organizatiorf, 
fearing  that  they  would  all  be  discharged 
or  driven  from  the  union,  adopted  reso- 
lutions of  that  character  to  protect  them- 
selves. 

Q.  With  the  idea  that  if  they  adopted 
a resolution  of  that  kind  the  companies— 
A.  That  the  companies  would  cease  their 
hostility  to  the  men  that  belonged  to  the 
union  for  belonging  to  it.  Q.  For  the 
reason  that  they  would  think  that  if 
they  discharged  any  union  men  there 
would  be  a strike?  Or  how  was  it  to 
work?  A.  It  was  simply  intended  to  give 
the  men  the  right  to  protect  themselves 
against  discharge  on  account  of  mem- 
bership in  the  union.  At  least,  that  is 
my  information  from  those  who  are 
more  familiar  with  it  than  I am.  Q. 
That  is,  by  making  everybody  join  the 
union?  A.  I do  not  think  they  ever  did 
do  that.  Q.  That  was  the  purpose  of 
their  resolution,  was  it  not?  A.  It  was 
the  hope  that  it  would  induce  everybody 
to  come  into  it,  but  primarily  for  the 
purpose  of  protecting  the  men  who  were 
in  it.  Q.  Insisting  upon  everybody  else 
joining  it;  that  was  it,  was  it  not?  A. 
The  resolution,  of  course,  speaks  for  it- 
self. As  for  its  purpose.  I have  tried  to 
explain  that  as  I understand  it. 

Q.  Now  let  me  call  your  attention  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  Shamokin  con- 
vention, March  IS  to  24,  1902:  “Proceed- 
ings of  the  joint  convention  of  Districts 
No.  1,  7 and  9,  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America,  March  18  to  24,  1902,  Sha- 
mokin, Pennsylvania.”  You  were  at  that 
convention,  were  you  not,  and  presided? 
Q.  (Reading).  "Resolution  No.  7.  To  the 
officers  and  delegates  of  the  convention, 
asembled:  Brothers— Having  from  past 
experience  proved  that  the  notices  posted 
by  the  operators  at  the  different  col- 


lieries are  only  a bluff,  and  that  the 
operators  have  not  lived  up  to  the  spirit 
of  such  notices  in  settling  local  differ- 
ences with  the  committees  chosen  to  set- 
tle such  differences;  therefore,  be  it  re- 
solved, that  we  demand  recognition  of 
such  grievances.  The  committee  (on  re- 
solutions) concurs  in  the  above  resolu- 
tion. Moved  we  concur  in  the  report  of 
the  committee.  Motion  carried.  Resolu- 
tion signed  by  James  Walters.  President; 
William  Cook,  secretary.  Local  No.  S99.” 
Was  that  passed  by  the  Shamokin  con- 
vention. A.  I do  not  remember.  If  it 
was,  the  minutes  will  show  it,  if  you  are 
reading  the  minutes.  I do  not  know 
whether  it  was  or  not. 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  about  this  resolu- 
tion: “Resolution  No.  9.  To  officers  and 
delegates  in  convention  assembled: 
Brothers — Whereas,  we,  the  miners  in  the 
vicinity  of  Nanticoke,  having  by  past  ex- 
perience proven  that  the  working  card 
or  button  is  very  little  benefit  to  us  in 
its  present  mode  of  working,  therefore,  be 
it  resolved,  that  the  U.  M.  W.  of  A.  at  any 
colliery  where  employes  refuse  to  be- 
come members  of  our  organization  and 
wear  the  working  button,  the  local  gov- 
erning such  colliery,  after  using  all  such 
persuasive  measures  to  get  such  em- 
ployes to  join,  and  failing  in  such,  have 
full  power  to  suspend  operations  at  such 
colliery  until  such  employes  become 
members  of  our  organization.”  Do  you 
recall  that  resolution? 

A.  I recall  that  resolution,  and  my  re- 
collection is  that  such  resolution  was 
adopted,  but  I would  not  be  sure  without 
referring  to  the  minutes  of  the  conven- 
tion. 

Q.  Will  you  produce  those  minutes?  A. 
I shall  look  them  up.  sir;  certainly,  y. 
Can  you  produce  the  original  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  and 
any  changes  which  have  been  made?  A. 
I shall  try  to  secure  it.  I have  not  got 
it  here.  If  I have  it.  it  is  at  Indiana- 
polis. 

Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  during  the  last  strike, 
there  were  considerable  violence  in  the  re- 
gion, was  there  not? 

A.  There  was  some  violence.  To  what 
extent,  I am  not  fully  informed. 

Here  Mr.  Willcox  read  the  proealma- 
tion  of  Governor  Stone,  of  October  6, 
when  the  whole  division  of  the  National 
guard  was  called  out,  in  which  it  is 
declared  that  mob  law  regined;  that 
trains  were  being  held  up,  men  killed 
and  assaulted,  etc. 

Mr.  Mitchell  was  asked  if  he  had 
read  that  proclamation.  He  answered 
in  the  affirmative. 

Q.  In  your  letter  to  the  president,  of 
October  16th  last,  you  stated  that  there 
have  been  a few  crimes  and  a number 
of  misdemeanors  chargeable  to  those  on 
strike.  You  recall  that,  do  you  not?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  Has  anything  ever  been  done 
to  discipline  these  people?  A.  I under- 
stand that  where  the  miners  were  guilty 
of  lawlessness,  they  have  been  arrested 
and  are  under  indictment.  Q.  I mean,  of 
course,  has  anything  been  done  by  your 
organization?  A.  We  have  no  means  of 
punishing  a man  who  has  committed  a 
crime,  except  by  expulsion  from  the 
union.  We  have  no  record  that  any  man 
that  has  been  arrested  Is  a member  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America.  Q. 
What  did  you  mean.  then,  by  saying  that 
there  had  been  crimes  and  misdemeanors 
chargeable  to  those  on  strike?  A.  Be- 
cause any  amount  of  non-union  men  were 
on  strike.  Q.  You  think  it  was  the  non- 


union  men  who  got  up  this  state  of  af- 
fairs? A.  I do  not  know.  I think  my 
information  is  that  it  was  not  members 
of  our  union.  Q.  What  methods  have  you 
taken  to  inquire  into  the  subject?  A.  The 
examination  of  our  books,  as  to  any  seri- 
ous crimes  that  have  been  committed, 
fails  to  show  that  they  were  committed 
by  members  of  the  union.  Q.  You  have 
not  found  a single  one  who  was  a member 
of  the  union?  A.  I have  not  investigated 
all  those  charged  with  crimes.  There 
have  been  very  few  strikers  arrested  for 
serious  offenses.  A large  number  of  them 
have  been  arrested  for  minor  offenses, 
such  as  picketing,  or  alleged  boycotting 
but  none  of  them  have  been  convicted  of 
lawlessness.  Q.  You  have  not  done  any- 
thing about  that,  then?  A.  We  take  the 
posifion  that  the  courts  are  the  propei 
persons  to  determine  the  innocencfe  or 
guilt  of  a person  arrested  and  that  until 
the  courts  have  determined  that,  we  have 
no  right  to  proceed  against  them.  Wo 
have  in  every  way  possible  endeavored  to 
restrain  our  men  from  committing  acts 
of  violence.  Q.  But  there  are  no  rules  of 
the  association  on  the  subject,  you  say? 
A.  Our  organization  has  no  rules  govern- 
ing it,  because  few  of  our  members  ever 
commit  crime. 

Q.  On  this  question  of  violence,  gener- 
ally, I would  like  to  ask  whether  you  ap- 
proved of  the  methods  pursued  at  the  St. 
Bernard  colliery,  at  Irvington.  Kentucky, 
as  reported  in  the  Wood  case,  113  Federal 
Reporter? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Tell  him  what  it  is  that 
you  are  asking  him  about.  He  may  not 
be  familiar  with  that  case. 

Mr.  Willcox:  He  can  say  so  if  he  is  not. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  I do  not  recall  the  con- 
ditions prevailing  in  Hopkins  county,  Ken- 
tucky, any  more  than  that  I know  some 
of  our  people  were  arrested  there  and 
some  were  killed  by  the  employes  of  the 
company.  I do  not  know  of  any  lawless- 
ness committed  by  strikers  or  union  men. 

By  Mr.  Willcox: 

Q.  the  report  of  the  case  states  that 
there  were  camps  maintained  down  there 
for  some  little  time?  A.  The  strikers  who 
were  thrown  out  of  the  company’s  houses 
because  they  were  on  strike,  were  main- 
tained by  the  union.  We  hired  grounds 
and  bought  them  some  tents  and  kept 
them  that  way  until  the  coal  companies, 
through  process  of  law,  had  our  tents 
taken  from  us  and  our  people  thrown  into 
jail. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  case  of  the  United 
States  vs.  Weber,  in  114  Federal  Reporter? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I know  something  of  it. 

Q.  The  case  which  was  decided  by 
Judges  Simonton  and  McDowell?  A.  I 
know  in  a general  way  of  the  case. 

Q.  Did  you  approve  of  what  was  done 
in  that  case? 

Mr.  Darrow:  I object  to  that  question. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Of  what  was  done  by 
Judge  McDowell? 

Mr.  Willcox:  No. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  I certainly  did  not. 

Mr.  Willcox:  I understand  that,  but  I 
mean  what  was  done  and  laid  before 
Judge  McDowell  for  his  action. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  I understand. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Just  a minute.  If  coun- 
sel wants  to  ask  him  whether  he  would 
approve  of  such  and  such  a fact,  that 
■would  be  all  right,  but  what  is  printed  in 
a book  the  witness  may  not  know.  I do 
not  know.  The  commission  may  not 
know.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  fair  to  the 
witness  or  to  throw  any  light  on  the  con- 
troversy. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Mitchell  seems  to 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


be  very  competent  to  take  care  of  him- 
self. I take  it  for  granted  that  when  he 
says  he  is  familiar  with  the  case  he 
means  that  he  understands  something  of 
the  facts  upon  which  the  case  is  founded. 
If  that  is  not  so,  Mr.  Mitchell,  of  course, 
you  need  not  answer  or  (I  will  put  it  this 
way)  we  will  not  expect  you  to  answer  the 
question. 

Mr.  Darrow:  If  you  will  indulge  me  for 
a moment,  to  be  familiar  with  a case  from 
a lawyer’s  standpoint  and  from  a lay- 
man’s standpoint,  are  very  different  prop- 
ositions. If  the  witness  understands,  it 
is  all  right. 

The  Chairman:  He  can  state,  if  he  is 
familiar  with  the  facts  out  of  which  that 
case  came,  and  if  he  is,  he  will  be  willing 
to  answer  the  question,  no  doubt.  If  he 
is  not,  we  will  not  expect  him  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  report  of  the  case  in 
the  books,  as  you  and  I read  it,  might 
not  be  as  the  witness  understands  it,  that 
is  all. 

The  Chairman:  Certainly. 

Mr.  Willcox:  You  can  examine  the  wit- 
ness again  when  the  time  comes. 

The  Chairman:  Of  course,  gentlemen, 
you  will  understand  that  we  are  supposed 
to  extend  the  greatest  liberality  in  the 
presentation  of  testimony  and  in  the 
cross-examination  of  witnesses.  Counsel 
themselves  will  have  to  prescribe  largely 
the  limitations  to  both,  because  we  must 
trust  to  their  good  faith  and  to  their 
knowledge  of  these  questions  in  the  pre- 
sentation of  their  cases.  The  witness  now 
on  the  stand  does  not  require  any  spe- 
cial protection,  and  if  you  will  make  plain 
to  him  exactly  what  you  mean,  I have  no 
doubt  you  will  get  an  answer.  I am  not 
familiar  with  that  case,  but  Mr.  Mitchell 
probably  is,  and  if  he  is  familiar  with  the 
facts,  he  will  give  you  an  answer.  I think 
the  question  is  a proper  one. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I would  not  object  to  It; 
the  only  thing  is  to  have  it  understood. 

The  Chairman:  I thought  we  mignt 
save  time;  we  are  traveling  a good  ways 
outside  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Willcox:  Where  do  you  stand  on 
that? 

The  Witness:  I might  say  that  I have 
a record  of  a brief  of  that  case,  al- 
though I have  not  had  opportunity  to 
read  it.  I understand  that  Mr.  Weber 
and  Mr.  Paddle  were  sent  to  prison  for 
violating  the  restraining  order  issued  by 
Judge  McDowell.  At  any  rate,  they  were 
sent  to  jail.  I appealed  the  case  to  tne 
president  of  the  United  States,  who  di- 
rected the  attorney  general  to  make  an 
investigation.  Just  as  soon  as  the  inves- 
tigation could  be  made,  the  president 
pardoned  those  who  were  convicted. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I withdraw  my  objection. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  Q.  That  does  not 
state  whether  you  approve  of  what  hap- 
pened in  that  case.  A.  I understand  that 
they  were  restrained  from  holding  public 
meetings  on  the  company’s  property  or 
on  the  roads  approaching  the  company’s 
property,  or  in  any  way  interfering  with 
the  employes  of  the  company  or  persuad- 
ing them  or  interfering  with  them  going 
to  work.  We  have  many  cases  of  that 
kind.  I should  certainly  approve  of  any 
organizers  in  our  employ  holding  meetings 
in  public  halls,  in  public  places;  doing 
that  which  under  the  law  they  have  a 
right  to  do.  We  deny  that  the  courts 
have  any  reason  to  restrain  members  of 
labor  unions  from  doing  anything  that  is 
lawful  when  done  by  some  other  citizen; 
in  other  words,  a member  of  the  union 
proposes  to  exercise  all  the  rights  that 


11 


are  exercised  by  other  citizens  of  the 
country. 

Q.  I do  not  think  anybody  will  differ 
with  you  on  that.  I shall  not.  A.  (Con- 
tinuing). But  in  these  cases  we  feel  that 
we  have  been  interferred  with  unjustly. 
For  instance,  miners  have  been  sent  to 
prison  for  holding  meetings  on  our  own 
grounds.  Q.  What  case  is  that?  A. 
Judge  Jackson  sent  miners  to  prison  for 
holding  meetings  on  grounds  owned,  by 
lease,  by  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  known  of  an  injunc- 
tion being  granted  against  any  organiza- 
tion which  you  thought  was  proper?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  there  have  been  provisions  in 
injunctions  restraining  our  people  from 
violating  a law  that  have  been  proper. 
The  only  reason  we  objected  to  the  in- 
junction was  because  it  restrained  us 
from  doing  things  we  had  a legal  right 
to  do,  and  in  any  event,  we  believe  we 
should  not  be  restrained  from  a commis- 
sion of  acts  that  we  might  be  punished 
for  by  simply  enforcing  the  law.  We  feel 
that  men  ought  not  to  be  sent  to  prison 
for  contempt  of  court  when  they  could 
be  sent  for  simply  violating  a law;  that 
the  law  is  ample,  it  is  far-reaching 
enough,  to  restrain  and  punish  those  who 
violate  the  law. 

Q.  I want  to  ask  you  something  about 
your  views  on  the  subject  of  boycotting. 
There  was  more  cr  less  of  that  during 
the  recent  strike,  was  there  not?  A.  1 un- 
derstand from  the  newspapers  that  there 
was  considerable  boycotting.  Q.  What 
newspapers  do  you  mean?  A.  I have  seen 
it  in  the  daily  papers;  I know  nothing 
officially'  or  personally  of  that  matter.  I 
never  authorized  a boycott.  Q.  Did  you 
ever  hear  of  this  resolution,  pased  by 
the  executive  committee  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  and  is  from 
the  New  York  Tribune  of  June  18th— I 
think  it  is— 1902:  ’Having  considered  the 

difficulties  now  presented  by  the  intro- 
duction of  scab  labor  into  our  town,  we 
do  here  respectfully  request  all  store- 
keepers, butchers,  ice  merchants  and 
others  not  to  supply  any  of  these  im- 
ported scabs  with  any  necessaries  of  life, 
as  in  so  doing  it  will  show  that  they  have 
a little  sympathy  with  our  cause  and  so 
hfelp  us  a little  to  fight  this,  our  fight  in 
right  against  might.” 

Do  you  remember  that?  A.  No,  I have 
no  recollection  of  even  hearing  that,  al- 
though I may  have  read  of  it  in  the 
papers  during  the  strike.  If  I did,  that 
is  all  the  knowledge  I have  of  it.  Q. 
Your  association  took  no  action  on  the 
subject,  did  it?  A.  Our  association  re- 
cognizes the  right  of  its  members  to  pe- 
tition storekeepers  to  sell  to  people,  if 
they  want  to;  or  to  refrain  from  selling 
to  them,  if  they  want  to.  In  other  words, 
membership  in  our  organization  would 
not  deny  or  prevent  any  of  our  mem- 
bers from  doing  anything  they  might  do 
if  they  were  not  members. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  making  a speech 
on  the  subject  of  boycotting?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  Q.  During  the  street  car  strike,  on 
the  12th  of  December,  1901?  A.  I recall 
having  spoken  at  that  time;  yes,  sir.  Q. 
I will  read  from  the  Scranton  Tribune 
what  purports  to  be  a correct  report  of 
that  speech.  It  was  delivered  at  a mass 
meeting,  December  12,  1902,  and  reported 
in  The  Scranton  Tribune  of  December 
12th: 

"I  do  not  know  whether  you  were 
right  or  wrong  when  this  strike  began, 
but  I do  know  that  the  refusal  of  the 
Scranton  Railway  company  to  confer 


12 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


with  you  places  the  burden  of  the  re- 
sponsibility for  this  condition  of  affairs 
upon  the  company.  It  has  come  to  my 
notice  that  the  business  and  professional 
men  have  been  building  up  an  organiza- 
tion with  the  idea  of  breaking  up  this 
strike  and  breaking  up  tms  boycott  of 
the  cars.  I want  to  say  on  this  occa- 
sion, for  the  30,000  members  of  my  or- 
ganization, that  they  will  not  patronize 
the  cars  as  long  as  the  company  refuses 
to  meet  with  its  men  or  their  representa- 
tives with  reference  to  this  trouble.  This 
strike  means  more  than  the  defeat  of 
the  men  who  are  now  engaged  in  it.  I 
know  that  if  the  street  car  men  are  de- 
feated now,  some  other  organization  will 
be  next  selected  as  a victim.  I know  not 
but  that  the  Mine  Workers  may  be  the 
ones  against  whom  the  fight  may  be 
waged.  This  strike  is  not  alone  the 
strike  of  the  street  car  men;  it  is  the 
concern  of  us  all.  The  company  has  its 
cars  running.  It  has  them  manned,  and 
if  the  business  and  professional  men  of 
this  city  think  that  their  interests  are  to 
be  best  subserved  by  combining  to  break 
this  strike,  then  indeed  are  they  blind  to 
their  own  interests.  If  they  think  the 
patronage  of  the  Scranton  Railway  com- 
pany is  the  most  desirable  thing  for 
them  to  have,  let  them  have  that  patron- 
age. I am  opposed  to  a strike  until 
every  means  of  maintaining  peace  is  ex- 
hausted; but  when  this  is  done  and  the 
workers  have  no  other  choice,  I say 
strike,  and  when  you  do  strike,  like  the 
miners  a year  ago,  strike  until  you  win. 
As  far  as  I can  speak  for  the  wage- 
earners  of  this  vicinity,  they  will  not 
patronize  the  street  cars  until  the  Scran- 
ton Railway  company  meets  and  confers 
with  your  representatives.  The  fact 
that  they  refuse  to  meet  you  is  to  me 
indisputable  evidence  that  they  fear  an 
investigation;  that  you  are  right  and 
they  are  wrong.  Keep  up  this  strike  un- 
til the  company  concedes  your  right  to 
confer;  keep  it  up,  but  be  law-abiding, 
and  I believe  you  will  win.  I am  told 
that  no  Mine  Worker  has  entered  a car 
since  the  strike  began,  and  as  far  as  I 
am  concerned,  not  one  of  them  will  until 
this  strike  is  honorably  settled.” 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that  speech?  A. 
Yes,  I recall  it  very  well.  I spoke  en- 
tirely extemporaneously  and  I do  not 
know  that  I am  reported  verbatim.  I am 
sure  of  that.  However,  the  views  as  you 
Quote  them  are  not  much  at  variance 
with  the  views  I hold  upon  the  question 
of  the  right  of  men  to  ride  in  a street 
car  or  not  to  ride  as  they  see  tit,  to  spend 
their  money  with  whatever  merchants 
they  choose.  In  other  words,  a boycott 
is  simply  a strike. 

Q.  I notice  that  in  your  speech  which 
you  delivered  to  the  Citizens’  Alliance  of 
Scranton,  July  10,  you  used  the  expression 
boycotting  rather  as  a term  of  reproach 
You  said:  ‘‘Is  it  not  rather  strange  that 
this  organization  was  not  formed  at  any 
time  during  the  past  twenty-five  years  in 
which  the  anthracite  coal  companies  were 
black-listing  and  boycotting  and  driving 
from  their  homes  and  families  all  men 
who  dared  to  assert  their  rights  to  join 
labor  organizations?”  Do  you  remem- 
ber that?  A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  a letter  which  was 
written  to  the  Evening  Leader  of  Wilkes- 
Barre?  I will  read  it.  “Whereas,  the 
Evening  Leader  of  this  city  has  published 
reports  of  riots,  etc.,  as  occurring  in  and 
around  this  city,  which  has  done  injury 
to  the  just  cause  of  the  striking  mine 
workers  be  it  therefore  resolved,  tliat  the 


delegates  accredited,  etc.,  to  the  Wilkes- 
Barre  sub-district  headquarters  demand 
that  the  Wilkes-Barre  Evening  Leader  re- 
tract its  statements  and  in  future  treat 
the  U.  SI.  tV.  of  A.  fair.  Should  the  man- 
agement not  do  this,  all  union  men  in  the 
city  of  Wilkes-Barre  and  vinicity  will  be 
ordered  not  to  buy,  read  or  otherwise  sup- 
port the  Evening  Leader,  and  all  mer- 
chants will  be  asked  to  withold  all  pat- 
ronage from  the  Evening  Leader  from 
this  day  forth. 

“William  Carne,  President, 

“E.  L.  Barrett,  Secretary.” 

Do  you  remember  that?  A.  I recall 
having  seen  that  statement  published  in 
the  papers.  Q.  Did  you  ever  express  any 
disapproval  of  it  in  any  way?  A.  I dia 
not  express  either  approval  or  disap- 
proval. Q.  What  is  the  meaning  of  a man 
being  unfair?  A.  Are  you  quoting  from 
something  now?  Q.  It  is  an  expression 
which  I noticed  has  been  used.  A.  We  re- 
gard a working  man  unfair  who  takes  an- 
other man’s  job  when  he  is  on  strike  for 
better  wages  or  in  resistance  to  a reduc- 
tion in  wages.  Q.  Suppose  you  take  an 
employer;  what  does  it  mean  as  applied 
to  him?  A.  We  would  regard  a merchant 
as  unfair  if  he  would  oppose  the  right  or 
men  belonging  to  unions  seeming  for  their 
labor  a reasonable  rate  of  wages.  Q.  Sup- 
pose he  sells  goods  to  a non-union  man; 
how  would  you  regard  that?  A.  Well,  x 
never  had  occasion  to  pass  upon  the  mat- 
ter myself.  If  I were  spending  my  own 
money  I should  fee!  I had  a right  to 
spend  it  with  him  or  some  one  else  if  I 
choose,  and  I feel  that  every  member  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  has 
the  same  right. 

Q.  Suppose  he  declined  to  grant  some 
demand  of  the  United  Mine  Workers; 
would  you  consider  it  proper  to  put  him 
on  the  unfair  list  and  send  people  arour.d 
to  notify  his  customers  that  he  was  on 
the  unfair  list?  A.  1 should  say  this: 
That  the  members  of  the  union  would 
have  a right  to  advertise  their  friends 
and  they  would  have  an  equal  right  to 
notify  their  neighbors  who  were  not 
friendly  to  them.  Q.  That  is  to  say,  they 
would  have  a right  to  send  around  and 
tell  people  not  to  deal  with  him?  A. 
They  would  have  a right  to  do  whatever 
the  law  gave  them  a right  to  do— I mean 
as  far  as  the  legal  right  is  concerned. 

By  the  Chairman: 

Q.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Willcox;  there  is  no 
question  about  that— about  the  right  of  a 
man  to  deal  with  whom  he  pleases.  What 
the  commission  would  like  to  know  is 
more  directly  whether  you  organization, 
Mr.  Mitchell,  as  you  are  representing  it, 
approve  of  using  the  boycott  as  a weapon 
to  the  extent  outlined  in  the  resolution 
read  a while  ago,  of  which,  of  course.  I 
can  only  quote  the  substance  from  mem- 
ory; that  where  what  you  call  'scab"  la- 
bor is  in  question  all  persons,  provision 
dealers,  those  who  furnish  the  necessities 
of  life,  are  warned  to  refrain  from  fur- 
nishing such  necessities  to  those  so- 
called  scab  laborers  or  their  families  upon 
pain  of  the  displeasure  of  the  members 
of  your  union? 

A.  I should  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
union,  as  such,  has  not  sanctioned  any 
such  action  on  the  part  of  its  members. 

Q.  Did  they  encourage  it? 

A.  They  do  not.  There  are  times  dur- 
ing great  excitement,  such  as  prevails  in 
a strike  when  the  tension  is  strong,  that 
members,  local  unions,  and  mass  meet- 
ings, may  at  times  feel  justified  in  ad- 
vising their  friends  and  members  not  to 
purchase  from  a storekeeper  who  sup- 


plies goods  to  the  non-union  men.  Q. 
That  is  not  the  question;  I think  the 
commission  agree  about  that.  I would 
like  to  know  whether  you  justify  the  tem- 
porary withdrawal  from  the  men  referred 
to  of  the  necessities  of  life,  the  things  by 
which  men  live  and  which  is  their  life.' 
A. I say  emphatically  no.  Q)  That  was 
the  purport  of  that  resolution  read,  ami 
I expected  the  question  to  be  brought 
down  to  that.  I wanted  that  question 
answered. 

Mr.  Willcox:  The  commission  has 

asked  the  witness  the  question  and  I can- 
not say  anything  more;  I am  glad  the 
commission  has  done  so.  Is  there  any- 
thing further  the  commission  would  like 
to  ask  on  the  subject? 

The  Chairman:  We  were  very  much 

interested,  and  we  expect  to  come  up 
to  that  point.  The  question  was  founded 
upon  a resolution  read  by  yourself  as 
passed  by  one  of  the  district  conventions? 

The  Witness:  No,  by  a local  board. 

The  Chairman:  The  substance  was 

that  all  persons  were,  in  effect,  warned 
not  to  furnish  the  necessaries  of  life  to 
the  scabs,  so-called,  or  their  families, 
which  would  be  taking  away  the  means 
of  sustenance — their  living.  That  is  what 
the  commission  wanted  to  be  informed 
about,  and  as  this  is  for  the  information 
of  the  commission,  I thought  it  wortn 
while  to  ask  the  question. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  While  we  are  on  that, 
I will  read  from  the  New  York  Herald  of 
June  11th,  1902:  “The  executive  commit- 
tee of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  Kan- 
ticoke  publish  the  following  resolutions: 
We  ask  all  our  union  clerks  and  team- 
sters to  cease  serving  or  delivering  goods 
to  any  non-union  men  now  worKing  in 
and  around  the  mines.  Having  received 
information  of  two  men  selling  milk 
around  our  town,  and  not  in  favor  with 
our  cause,  who  have  expressed  that  75 
cents  a day  was  enough  for  any  men  to 
live  upon.  Be  it  resolved,  that  the  two 
men— Smith  and  Hale — be  declared  un- 
fair, and  that  they  be  dealt  with  ac- 
cordingly.’ ” Do  you  remember  hearing 
of  that  resolution? 

A.  I do  not.  I may  have  read  it  in  the 
papers  at  the  time,  but  I do  not  recol- 
lect it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  do  anything  to  inves- 
tigate as  to  whether  these  resolutions 
had  the  effect  they  were  intended  to 
have? 

A.  I had  neither  time  nor  opportunity 
to  investigate  matters  that  came  to  my 
notice  through  the  newspapers.  I will 
say  that  I issued  statements  repeatedly 
and  in  my  public  addresses  repeatedly 
declared  that  the  men  must  not  violate 
the  law;  that  the  man  who  transcended 
the  law  was  the  worst  enemy  the  strikers 
had.  That  is  a part  of  my  public  ud- 
dreses  everywhere. 

Mr.  Willcox:  I know,  you  have  said 

that  a good  many  times. 

The  hour  of  four  having  arrived. 
Judge  Gray  interrupted  the  examina- 
tion with  the  announcement  the  com- 
mission would  now  rise  and  adjourn 
until  10  o’clock  this  morning. 

The  only  questions  asked  by  members 
of  the  commission  outside  of  the  few  re- 
lated above  were  one  by  Mr.  Watkins 
inquiring  as  to  what  Mr.  Willcox  was 
reading  from,  and  one  from  Bishop 
Spalding  as  to  something  about  an  an- 
swer he  did  not  hear: 

General  Wilson,  Mr.  Clark,  Recorder 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


13 


Wright  and  Mr.  Parker  made  no  in-  A conference  of  the  commission  was  nothing  was  given  out  as  to  what  was 
quiries.  held  at  the  Jermyn  last  night,  but  done. 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Nov.  15. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  17.] 


Saturday’s  session  of  the  mine  strike 
commission  was  replete  with  interest- 
ing features.  President  John  Mitchell, 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  was  on 
the  stand  all  day  under  cross-examina- 
tion for  two  hours  by  David  Willcox, 
general  counsel  for  the  Delaware  and 
Hudson  company,  and  two  hours  and  a 
half  by  Hon.  Wayne  MacVeagh,  of 
counsel  for  the  Erie’s  coal  properties. 
It  was  a trying  time  for  the  miners’ 
young  leader,  but  he  made  a remark- 
ably good  showing  in  the  battle  of 
brains  with  these  two  legal  giants. 

Mr.  Willcox  continued  his  examina- 
tion along  the  lines  pursued  the  day 
before,  devoting  attention  almost  exclu- 
sively to  an  exploitation  of  the  reasons 
the  operators  have  for  not  wishing  to 
recognize  the  mine  workers’  union,  to 
the  extent  of  entering  into  a contract 
with  it  as  representing  their  employes. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  also  clwelt  at  length 
on  this  same  subject,  but  more  particu- 
larly devoted  himself  to  proving  by  ad- 
missions from  Mr.  Mitchell  that  the  de- 
tailed grievances  of  the  miners  do  not 
justly  lie  against  the  Erie  company. 

There  were  numerous  interesting  tilts 
between  Mr.  MacVeagh  and  the  wit- 
ness, in  which  both  lawyer  and  miner 
scored  some  telling  points.  Ey  frequent 
use  of  the  prefatory  phrase,  “'Would  it 
surprise  you  to  know  that,  etc.?”  Mr. 
MacVeagh  succeeded  in  presenting  a 
large  quantity  of  information  which 
his  side  of  the  case  would  have  the 
commissioners  hear.  Mr.  Mitchell 
would  invariably  tell  'that  he  was  not 
surprised  to  hear  that  this,  that  or  the 
other  one,  as  the  case  might  be,  had 
said  the  thing  in  question,  and  then, 
would  proceed  'to  do  what  he  could  to 
belittle  the  effect  of  the  lawyer’s  tes- 
timony by  adding  to  or  qualifying  it 
with  a little  information  favorable  to 
his  side. 

Never  at  a Loss. 

Mr.  Mitchell  was  never  alt  a loss  for 
a reply  to  the  questions,  but  his  replies 
were  not  always  responsive.  At  one 
time  Mr.  MacVeagh  was  moved  to 
“compliment”  the  witness  at  his  great 
adroitness  in  “begging  the  question.” 
Several  times,  he  insisted  Mr.  Mitchell 
was  not  answering  his  question,  and 
persisted  in  repeating  it  until  an  an- 
swer was  forthcoming  or  the  witness 
admitted  he  did  not  know. 

Mr.  MacVeaah,  also,  in  indirect  but 
nevertheless  effective  manner,  spent  no 
little  energy  in  getting  Mr.  Mitchell  to 
advert’se  his  ignorance  of  anthracite 
conditions,  and  having  done  this  to  his 
full  satisfaction,  drew  attention  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  John  Mitchell’s  sig- 
nature which  appeared  under  the  set  of 
grievances  which  came  to  the  com- 
panies. 


Each  lawyer  was  armed  with  a big 
scrap  book  and  volumes  of  data  from 
which  copious  extracts  were  made  for 
the  concoction  of  questions.  Minutes 
of  mine  workers’  conventions,  letters 
from  the  miners’  headquarters,  a raft 
of  other  such  material,  was  in  the 
lawyers’  possession.  It  was  very  evi- 
dent that  the  companies,  in  their  prep- 
aration for  the  hearing,  had  not  con- 
tented themselves  with  what  informa- 
tion could  be  gathered  from  their  office 
books. 

By  the  use  of  “Would  it  surprise 
you?”  as  an  interrogatory  preface  to 
his  declarations,  Mr.  MacVeagh  brought 
out  that  the  Illinois  operators  are 
not  wildly  enthusiastic  about  the 
United  Mine  Workers,  as  Mr.  Mitchell 
would  have  it  understood.  He  intimat- 
ed that  members  of  the  operators’  as- 
sociation from  that  state  would  be  here 
to  corroborate  his  contention  that  the 
conditions  into  which  Mr.  Mitchell 
would  have  the  anthracite  operators 
enter  are  not  considered  a “seventh 
heaven”  by  operators  now  enjoying 
them. 

Chairman  Thomas  Present. 

Practically  the  same  parties  were 
within  the  bar  enclosure  as  on  the  open- 
ing day.  Chairman  E.  B.  Thomas,  of 
the  Erie  board  of  directors,  was  the 
most  prominent  of  the  new  comers.  He 
sat  with  the  company’s  attorneys  while 
Mr.  MacVeagh  was  cross-examining 
Mr.  Mitchell.  Once  when  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh made  the  statement  that  the 
Erie  miners  could  have  their  pay  every 
Saturday,  if  they  petitioned  for  it,  Mr. 
Thomas  nodded  his  head  in  assent. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion Chairman  Gray  announced  to  At- 
torneys Lenahan  and  O’Brien  and 
their  clients,  the  non-union  men,  that 
the  commission  would  ask  them  to  sub- 
mit to  them  a statement  showing  whom 
they  represent,  by  what  authority,  and 
what  points  other  than  those  that  are 
already  made  issues  between  the  formal 
parties  to  the  controversy,  they  wish 
to  interject  into  the  hearing;  also  a 
concise  statement  of  what  they  may 
claim,  and  what  their  position  will  be 
in  regard  to  the  general  disputation  be- 
tween the  formal  and  logical  parties  to 
the  submission.  He  further  said  they 
must  guarantee  that  they  will  submit 
to  the  decision  of  the  commission. 

Mr.  Lenahan  said  these  conditions 
would  be  complied  with,  with  all  possi- 
ble despatch. 

Substantially,  all  the  testimony  of 
th“  day  is  given  below. 

Saturday  night  the  commissioners 
were  entertained  at  dinner  at  the  house 
of  Commissioner  Watkins.  Yesterday 
the  most  of  them  attended  services  at 
the  church  of  each’s  denomination, 


and  last  evening  they  occupied  boxes 
at  the  lecture  on  “Success”  given  by 
Bishop  Spalding  at  the  Lyceum,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Elouse  of  the  Good  Shep- 
herd. 

Resume  This  Morning. 

The  commission  will  resume  its  ses- 
sions at  10  o’clock  this  morning.  The 
cross-examination  of  Mr.  Mitchell  by 
Mr.  MacVeagh  will  be  proceeded  with, 
and  at  its  conclusion  counsel  for  some 
one  of  the  other  companies  will  exam- 
ine him.  It  is  likely  he  will  be  on  the 
stand  all  of  today  and  tomorrow.  Mr. 
Mitchell  said,  last  night,  he  did  not 
know  who  would  follow  him  on  the 
stand.  The  belief  now  is  that  both  the 
miners’  and  operators’  sides  will  be 
heard  in  this  ctiy.  The  commissioners 
favor  it,  and  as  yet  no  one  has  come 
forward  to  seriously  oppose  the  plan. 


SATURDAY’S  EVIDENCE. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  I wish  to  read  in  evi- 
dence some  of  the  resolutions  which  as 
I understand  were  passed  at  the  Shamo- 
kin  convention,  and  I will  ask  you  to  be 
kind  enough  to  follow  them  with  the 
minutes,  so  that  you  can  correct  them,  if 
they  are  not  correct.  Have  you  resolu- 
tion No.  9? 

Q.  (Reading.)  “To  officers  and  dele- 
gates in  convention  assembled.  Brothers: 
Whereas,  we,  the  miners  in  the  vicinity 
of  Natieoke,  having  by  past  experience 
proven  that  the  working  card  or  button 
is  very  little  benefit  to  us  in  its  present 
mode  of  working,  therefore,  be  it  re- 
solved, that  the  IT.  M.  W.  of  A.  at  any 
colliery  where  employ-es  refuse  to  become 
members  of  our  organization  and  wear 
the  working  button,  the  local  governing 
such  colliery,  after  using  all  such  meas- 
ures to  get  such  employes  to  join,  and 
failing  in  such,  have  full  power  to  sus- 
pend operations  at  such  colliery,  until 
such  employes  become  members  of  our 
organization.”  That  is  correct,  is  it?  A. 
Yes.  Commissioner  Clark:  Was  that 

resolution  adopted?  A.  (After  consulting 
paper).  The  resolution  was  finally 
adopted. 

Q.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  reso- 
lution, No.  IS:  “Resolved  that  it  is  the 

sense  of  this  convention  to  most  heartily 
endorse  colliery  locals,  and  to  insist  that 
the  said  employes  of  said  collieries  be 
members  of  said  locals,  Frank  Marchin- 
ski,  president;  Stanley  Debeck,  secretary. 
Local  110.  Moved  the  resolutions  be 
adopted.  Carried.”  Is  that  right?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  resolution  No.  27?  A.  Yes. 
Q.  (Reading).  “Whereas,  the  D.,  L.  ard 
W.  company  have  discharged  the  firemen 
of  Woodward,  Avondale  and  Pettebone 
collieries  for  refusing  to  accept  a propo- 
sition to  change  conditions  regarding 
Sunday  shift;  and  whereas,  they  base 
their  refusal  upon  the  claim  that  the 
notices  posted  last  March  stated  that  the 
conditions  of  employment  should  remain 
the  same  until  April  1.  1902;  therefore  be 
it  resolved  that  we  demand  the  rein- 


14 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


statement  of  all  the  discharged  men  in 
their  former  positions;  and  further,  be  it 
resolved,  that  in  the  event  of  the  com- 
pany refusing  to  reinstate  them,  we  or- 
der a strike  of  all  employes  of  the  com- 
pany. T.  D.  Nicholls.  The  committee 
concurs  in  the  above  resolution.  Moved 
we  concur  in  the  above  resolution. 
Moved  we  concur  in  the  report  of  the 
committee.  Motion  carried.”  Is  that 
right?  A.  Yes  sir. 

New  System  in  Force. 

Q.  Have  you  resolution  No.  29?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  Q.  (Reading):  “Whereas,  the  D.  and 
H.  company,  at  Plymouth,  have  intro- 
duced a new  system  of  forcing  the 
miners  to  place  the  road  on  one  side  of 
the  place  instead  of  in  the  center,  as 
heretofore,  causing  almost  double  labor 
in  leading  coal,  and  in  moving  all  rock 
and  gob  to  one  side  of  the  place,  and 
whereas,  the  company  saves  money  by 
keeping  the  pillars  free  from  gob,  and 
are  able  to  rob  pillars  at  less  expense; 
therefore,  be  it  resolved,  that  we  demand 
that  the  company  shall  pay  extra  price 
for  the  extra  work  entailed  by  the  new 
system.  In  the  event  of  the  company  re- 
fusing to  agree  to  either  one  of  there 
terms  all  the  employes  of  the  company 
be  ordered  out  on  strike.  Signed — T.  D. 
Nicholls.  The  committee  concurs  in  the 
be  adopted.  Motion  carried.”  That  is 
right?  A.  The  committee  concurred  in 
the  resolution.  It  was  moved  that  it  be 
referred  to  the  committee  on  scale.  The 
motion  to  refer  was  carried.  Q.  Was 
there  any  motion  by  the  committee  on 
scale  on  the  subject?  A.  In  the  closing 
of  the  convention  all  the  resolutions  you 
have  read  that  appear  to  be  adopted, 
were  reconsidered  and  referred  to  the 
executive  boards  of  the  three  districts, 
ln-so-far  as  they  directed  the  calling  out 
of  any  men. 

Q.  Have  you  resolution  No.  35? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (Reading).  “Whereas,  the  district 
convention  of  No.  1 decided  to  insist  upon 
forcing  all  men  in  and  around  the  mines 
to  become  members  of  the  union,  and 
that  we  be  authorized  to  refuse  to  work 
with  non-union  men;  and,  whereas,  two 
members  of  a card  committee  at  the 
Nottingham  colliery  have  been  dis- 
charged for • examining  cards;  therefore, 
be  it  resolved,  that  we  Insist  upon  the 
reinstatement  of  those  members  to  their 
former  positions,  and  if  the  company  re- 
fuse, that  a general  strike  be  ordered  at 
all  collieries  of  the  company.  Signed— T. 
D.  Nicholls.  The  committee  concurs  in 
the  above  resolution.  Moved  that  we 
concur  in  the  report  of  the  committee. 
Motion  carried.”  Is  that  right?  A. 
That  is  correct. 

Darrow's  Suggestion. 

Mr.  Darrow:  May  I ask  the  witness 
just  to  look  at  the  back  of  the  book 
there?  There  were  some  of  these  matters 
that  were  reconsidered,  and  I am  not 
sure  myself  what  they  were. 

Mr.  Willcox:  We  will  come  to  that. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Just  as  you  please.  I 
thought  I would  mention  it. 

Mr.  Willcox:  We  will  come  to  that. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Just  as  you  please. 

Mr.  Willcox:  Q.  Have  you  resolution 
No.  42? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (reading).  “Whereas,  it  is  a well- 
known  fact  that  in  many  sections  of  the 
anthracite  region  there  is  a system  of 
contract  in  vogue  which  is,  and  has  been, 
very  obnoxious  and  vicious  in  its  fulfil- 


ment, inasmuch  that  In  many  cases  one 
man  employs  from  four  to  twenty  labor- 
ers, and  in  some  cases  the  contractor  sel- 
dom enters  or  comes  near  the  work  for 
one  or  two  weeks  at  a time,  and  this  in 
Itself  is  not  the  cause  or  principle  advo- 
cated by  the  U.  M.  W.  of  A. ; therefore, 
be  it  resolved,  that  any  member  of  the 
organization  who  shall  contract  for  such 
work  as  will  necessitate  the  employment 
of  more  than  two  laborers,  excepting 
such  contracts  as  shaft  sinking,  slope 
sinking  or  tunnel  driving,  shall  be  ex- 
pelled from  the  U.  M.  W.  of  A.;  and  we, 
the  members  of  the  IJ.  M.  W.  of  A.,  ab- 
solutely refuse  to  work  with  any  man  so 
expelled  from  the  union;  and  be  it  fur- 
ther resolved,  that  we  condemn  the  em- 
ployment of  laborers  in  chutes  and  head- 
ings, or  monkeys  and  breasts,  as  is  now 
practiced  in  some  parts  of  the  anthra- 
cite region,  and  we  recommend  the  aboli- 
tion of  such  employment.  The  committee 
concurs  in  the  above  resolution.  Moved 
we  concur  in  the  report  of  the  committee. 
Motion  carried.”  Is  that  correct.  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  said,  that  after  hav- 
ing adopted  all  these  resolutions,  they 
were  all  reconsidered.  A.  I am  speaking 
entirely  from  memory  in  saying  so;  that 
in  the  closing  of  the  convention  a motion 
was  made  to  refer  all  the  matters  of 
that  kind  to  executive  boards.  I will  try 
to  find  it  in  a minute.  I wish  to  call 
attention  to  it  later  on. 

A Magazine  Offered. 

Mr.  Willcox:  I want  to  offer  the 

American  Federationist  for  September, 
1902. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Do  you  mean  the  whole 
magazine* 

Mr.  Willcox:  I think  we  might  as  well 
offer  the  whole  magazine. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I do  not  think  we  want 
to  object  to  anything. 

The  Chairman:  Let  me  suggest  that, 
in  view  of  the  immense  load  of  docu- 
mentary testimony  that  we  are  likely  to 
have,  you  had  better  point  out  what 
parts  of  that  magazine  you  wish  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  commission  to.  My 
suggestion  is  simply  in  regard  to  the 
volume  of  testimony.  We  do  not  want 
to  have  to  weigh  this  testimony,  actually, 
on  either  side.  (Laughter). 

Q.  On  yesterday  there  was  some  refer- 
ence to  the  matter  of  picketing.  I un- 
derstand that  the  operations  of  the  pick- 
ets are  directed  by  the  locals.  A.  Yes, 
sir.  Q.  In  the  different  vicinities  where 
the  pickets  act?  A.  They  may  be  di- 
rected by  the  local  unions  or  they  may 
be  directed  by  mass  meetings  of  mine 
workers. 

Q.  I want  to  read  the  statement  made 
by  Mr.  Gompers,  president  of  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor,  at  the  Chicago 
Trust  conference,  in  September,  1898.  It 
is  as  follows:  "It  has  been  said  that  or- 
ganized labor  is  a trust,  and  I want  to 
say  in  connection  with  this,  that  to  our 
minds  that  is  an  absolute  misnomer.  Or- 
ganized labor  throws  open  its  doors  to  all 
who  work  for  wages,  and  asks  them  to 
come  in  and  share  the  benefits.  We  try 
to  prevent,  by  all  means  within  our 
power,  any  one  from  leaving  or  going 
outside,  the  union.  You  cannot  break 
into  a trust,  and  for  this  reason  I want 
to  say  that  any  legislation  proposed  by 
this  conference,  or  by  any  legislature,  or 
by  congress,  which  does  not  eliminate  or 
specially  exempt  organized  labor  from 
the  operations  of  the  law.  wil  meet  the 
unquestioned  opposition  of  all  the  labor 


forces  of  our  country.”  Does  that  ex- 
press you  views?  A.  Mr.  Gompers  is 
there  expressing  his  own  views,  and 
they  are  entirely  independent  of  any 
views  I have.  If  you  care  to  have  an 
expression  of  my  opinion  on  the  subject 
of  trusts,  I wil  be  very  glad  to  give  it. 

Missed  the  Point. 

Q.  No.  I think  you  missed  the  point. 
Whether  in  any  legislation  in  regard  to 
trusts,  organized  labor  must  be  excepted 
or  the  legislation  will  be  opposed.  A.  I 
should  say  that  the  United  Mine  Workers 
of  America  would  very  strenuously  op- 
pose any  legislation  that  would  deny 
them  the  right  to  organize,  in  their 
present  form  or  any  other  lawful  form. 
It  would  not  look  with  favor  upon  any 
law  that  would  legislate  them  out  of 
business.  (Laughter). 

Q.  No.  I suppose  that  is  natural;  we 
would  all  agTee  on  that.  I notice  that 
you  use  quite  frequently  the  expression, 
"living  wages.”  A.  Well,  I would  regard 
a living  wage  for  a coal  miner,  the 
amount  necessary  to  give  the  coal  miner 
or  coal  worker  a living  wage,  to  be 
not  less  than  $800  a year.  Q.  And  would 
that  apply  to  the  country  generally.  .A. 
No,  I think  not;  it  would  depend  very 
largely  upon  people’s  environment.  I pre- 
sume a person  living  at  one  point  might 
require  a little  more  than  at  another,  but  I 
think  in  the  mining  regions  it  would  re- 
quire $600  to  purchase  the  actual  necessi- 
ties and  permit  the  mine  workers  to  edu- 
cate their  children. 

By  the  Chairman:  Will  you  allow  me 
to  ask,  merely  for  my  own  information, 
precisely  what  you  mean  by  saying  such 
a wage  as  among  other  things  would 
permit  the  miners  to  educate  their  chil- 
dren; do  you  mean  to  permit,  them  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  public  schools  or 
to  spend  a portion  of  their  income  direct- 
ly for  education?  A.  I just  mean  a wage 
that  would  permit  them  to  send  their 
children  to  the  public  schools  and  give 
them  a good  common  school  education, 
Q.  Such  a wage  as  would  not  put  the  neces- 
sity upon  them  of  employing  their  labor 
to  increase  their  income;  do  you  mean 
that?  A.  Yes.  sir. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  Q.  Right  there,  as 
the  commission  has  asked  it.  is  it  your 
view  that  there  should  be  no  employ- 
ment of  labor  under  a certain  age?  A. 
Personally  I do  not  believe  that  any 
child  should  work  until  it  has  obtained 
a reasonably  satisfactory  education,  and 
in  no  event  until  it  has  attained  14  years 
of  age. 

Here  it  was  brought  out  from  the  law 
books  and  the  witness  that  in  the  an- 
thracite mines  a boy  must  be  14  years 
of  age  to  worjc  Inside  and  12  years  to 
work  outside  a mine,  and  that  in  the 
bituminous  region  of  Pennsylvania  the 
minimum  age  for  both  outside  and  in- 
side work  is  12  years. 

Employment  of  Boys. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  Mr.  Mitchell,  have 

the  mine  workers  ever  taken  any  action 
with  reference  to  modifying  this  statute 
as  to  employment  of  boys  in  the  an- 
thracite mines?  A.  They  have  made  a 
part  of  their  declaration  of  purposes  the 
enactment  of  laws  prohibiting  the  em- 
ployment of  boys  until  they  are  fourteen 
years  of  age.  Q.  They  have  not  done  any- 
thing but  that?  A.  I do  not  know  what 
steps  they  have — what  has  been  done  in 
the  legislature  of  the  state  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. Q.  So  far  as  you  are  aware,  no  ef- 
fort has  been  made  to  change  this  law? 


A.  I might  say  that  I would  be  In  a con- 
dition to  know  very  little  abcut  what  our 
legislative  committees  were  doing  while 
attending  sessions  of  the  legislature.  We 
have  several  other  witnesses  who  are 
very  familiar  with  what  they  have  done 
in  that  resnect 

Q.  Would  you  advocate  changing  this 
law  so  as  to  raise  the  age  at  which  boys 
should  be  employed?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  To 
what  age?  A.  Fourteen.  Q.  You  think 
fourteen  would  be  the  proper  age?  A.  No, 
I do  not  think  it  would  be  the  proper  age, 
but  I think  it  should  be  the  minimum  age 
at  which  boys  are  employed  under  the 
present  conditions.  Q.  That  is  on  the 
breakers?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  Is  it  not  a 
fact  that  there  are  a great  many  breaker 
boys  who  are  supporting  their  mothers 
or  sisters  or  relatives  who  are  dependent 
on  them?  A.  Yes,  sir,  it  is  true.  Q.  Is  it 
not  also  a fact  that  there  are  a great 
many  breaker  boys  at  work  who  have 
fathers  earning  good  wages?  A.  As  to 
that  I do  not  know.  Q.  You  do  not  know 
about  that?  A.  No,  I do  not  know  about 
the  part  as  to  their  fathers  earning  good 
wages.  (Laughter).  Q.  Good  wages  as 
wages  go— average  wages?  A.  No.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is  that  my  information 
is  entirely  to  the  contrary.  Q.  That  there 
are  very  few  of  the  breaker  boys  work- 
ing whose  fathers  are  earning  average 
wages?  A.  I do  not  know.  I presume 
there  are  quite  a number  of  the  boys 
working  whose  fathers  are  earning  the 
average  wages  paid  in  the  anthracite 
mines.  Q.  Yes?  A.  Yes,  I understand 
that  is  true.  Q.  Do  you  know  whether 
those  boys  can  earn  more  anywhere  else? 
A.  Do  you  mean  by  securing  employment 
anywhere  else  in  the  anthracite  field?  Q. 
Yes.  A.  I do  not  suppose  there  is  employ- 
ment for  them.  Q.  And  would  it  be  a 
hardship  to  cut  off  this  source  of  income 
from  them — this  source  of  income  to 
those  dependent  upon  them?  A.  1 should 
say  that  unless  the  wages  of  their  parents 
are  made  sufficient,  that  it  would  be  a 
hardship  to  cut  off  the  earnings  of  their 
children. 

Proper  Age  for  Work. 

Q.  But  I say,  you  would  not  advocate 
the  introduction  of  such  machinery,  and 
In  that  way  the  cutting  off  of  employment 
from  these  boys?  A.  I should  say  that, 
personally,  I believe  that  they  ought  to  be 
in  school  until  they  are  sixteen;  but  I say 
the  principles  of  our  organization  are  that 
they  should  remain  in  school  until  they 
are  fourteen. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Mitchell,  coming  back  to 
where  I was,  has  there  been  any  de- 
mand for  recognition  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  as  your  demands  have  been 
heretofore  presented?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  Well, 
now,  take  you  telegram  of  the  8th  of 
May  to  the  presidents  of  the  coal  com- 
panies; there  was  no  demand  for  recog- 
nition of  the  union,  was  there?  A.  The 
telegram  itself  does  not  sav  there  is  a 
demand  for  recognition  of  the  union,  but 
the  telegram  is  sent  by  the  union,  and 
the  union  is  speaking  through  those  who 
are  negotiating  with  the  railway  presi- 
dents. Q.  Yes,  but  there  is  a statement 
there  of  three  demands  which  the  union 
makes,  and  recognition  is  not  one  of  them, 
is  it?  A.  Not  in  this  particular  telegram; 
but  it  would  be  necessary  to  say,  Mr. 
Willcox,  that  this  telegram  was  sent  just 
before  a strike  was  to  be  inaugurated,  and 
referred  to  demands  made  prior  to  that 
time. 

Q.  It  does  not  seem  to  contain  any  such 
reference  in  the  body  of  the  telegram.  A. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

The  letters  that  were  directed  to  the  rail- 
way presidents  in  last  March,  or  during 
February,  asked  them  to  meet  in  confer- 
ence with  the  mine  workers  for  the  pur- 
pose of  adjusting  wage  differences  and 
making  agreements,  and  this  telegram  is 
sent  in  reference  to  our  failure  to  agree. 
Q.  Yes,  but  the  demands  are  stated  in 
this  telegram?  A.  Part  of  the  demands 
are.  Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  I call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  article  which  you  wrote,  pub- 
lished in  Collier’s  Weekly,  September  6, 
1902,  entitled  “The  Voice  of  Labor.’’  That 
eeems  to  contain  this  statement:  “We 
make  no  formal  demand  for  recognition 
of  the  union.”  You  published  that  state- 
ment, didn't  you?  A.  Yes,  but  the  article 
goes  on  to  say:  “We  merely  argue  that  if 
an  agreement  could  be  reached  between 
employers  and  employes  which  would  be 
binding  on  both  for  a certain  period  of 
time,  say  three  or  four  years,  it  would  do 
away  with  local  strikes.”  And  so  on. 
So  it  provides  for  an  agreement. 

Q.  But  it  says  also  that  there  is  no 
formal  demand  for  recognition  of  the 
union,  does  it  not?  A.  It  is  true  that  that 
statement  appears  there,  but  the  ex- 
planation of  it  must  go  along  with  it. 
Q.  What  is  the  explanation?  A.  1 might 
say  that  a considerable  number  of  people 
were  under  the  impression  that  the  strike 
was  simply  for  recognition  of  the  union; 
and  recognition  of  the  union  was  not  by 
any  means  the  important  issue  in  the 
strike,  or  the  paramount  issue,  I might 
say,  or  had  better  say. 

The  Specific  Demand. 

Q.  Now,  in  this  report  of  the  depart- 
ment of  labor,  on  page  1150,  the  statement 
is  contained  that 

“The  specific  demands,  as  given  to  me 
in  writing,  by  Mr.  John  Mitchell,  the 
president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  were  as  follows: 

“1.  That  there  shall  be  an  increase  of 
20  per  cent,  to  the  miners  who  are  paid  by 
the  ton— that  is,  for  men  performing  con- 
tract work.  These  men  involve  about  40 
per  cent,  of  all  the  miners. 

“2.  A reduction  of  20  per  cent,  in  tns 
time  of  per  diem  employes.  The  mines 
are  operated  about  200  days  per  year,  10 
hours  per  day.  This  demand,  if  granted, 
would  result  in  reducing  the  day  to  8 
hours  (20  per  cent.)  so  that  the  mines 
would  be  operated  240  days  at  about  the 
same  pay;  hence  an  equivalent  of  20  per 
cent,  increase  in  the  earnings,  no  increase 
in  the  rates  of  per  diem  employes  being 
demanded. 

“3.  That  2,240  pounds  shall  constitute  the 
ton  on  which  payment  is  based  for  all 
coal  mined  where  the  miners  are  paid  by 
weight.  This  would  apply  in  any  district 
where  weighing  of  coal  would  be  prac- 
ticable, and  to  those  miners  who  are  paid 
by  the  quantity  and  not  those  paid  by  the 
day. 

“These  constitute  the  specific  demands 
of  the  coal  mine  employes,  and  there  is 
no  disagreement  as  to  the  substance  of 
the  demands.” 

Q.  That  is  correct,  is  it  not?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Then  the  report  further  states: 
“These  demands  being  rejected,  the 
miners  subsequently  offered  to  accept 
one-half  that — that  is  to  say— 10  per  cent, 
increase  in  the  pay  per  ton  where  mining 
is  paid  in  that  manner,  and  10  per  cent 
decrease  in  the  working  day.” 

That  is  correct,  is  it  not? 

A.  The  miners  did  not  offer  to  accept 
that  amount.  Their  representatives  in 
the  Conference  with  the  railway  presi- 


15 


dents  proposed  that  in  order  to  avert  a 
strike,  that  that  be  recommended. 

Q.  I notice  that  you  state  in  this  arti- 
cle in  Collier's  Weekly  that  for  more 
than  twenty-five  years  the  coal  mine 
workers  of  Pennsylvania  had  chafed  un- 
der the  most  intolerable  and  inhumane 
conditions  of  employment;  and  I think 
you  have  stated  that  on  other  occasions. 
What  period  did  you  refer  to?  A.  I mean 
the  period  running  back  twenty-five  years 
from  now.  Q.  From  now  or  from  1900? 
A.  From  the  beginning  of  the  strike  of 
1892.  The  strike  of  1900  improved  the  con- 
ditions of  employment  somewhat.  Q. 
What  knowledge  have  you  of  any  reduc- 
tion of  wages  ever  having  been  made  in 
the  anthracite  region  in  all  that  time?  A. 
I have  a very  general  knowledge  of  re- 
ductions having  been  made  by  increas- 
ing the  size  of  the  cars  the  men  were 
compelled  to  load;  requiring  more  top- 
ping; increasing  the  size  of  the  ton;  cut- 
ting off  of  pay  for  dead  work;  allowances, 
and  so  forth.  Q.  Your  knowledge  is  gen- 
eral and  founded  on  what  peonle  have 
told  you?  A.  Necessarily,  it  was  the  re- 
cult of  reports  made  to  me.  Q.  But  you 
do  not  know  of  any  general  reduction  in 
the  rates  of  wages  in  the  anthracite  re- 
gion in  that  time,  do  you?  A.  1 do  not 
know  of  any  general  reduction;  no,  sir; 
any  more  than  as  I have  informed  you. 

A Fall  in  Wages. 

Q.  As  I understand,  there  was  in  the 
bituminous  region  an  average  fall  as  low 
as  70  cents  a day.  Is  not  that  so?  A.  I 
do  not  know  that  that  is  so.  Q.  Did  you 
not  so  state  before  the  industrial  com- 
mission? A.  I might  say,  for  your  infor- 
mation, that  at  the  time  of  my  testimony 
before  the  national  industrial  commis- 
sion, I was  speaking  on  information  then 
in  my  possession  that  I presumed  to  be 
correct.  A.  reference  to  the  coal  reports 
of  the  same  year  indicated  that  1 had 
included  in  my  calculations  thirty  per 
cent,  of  the  employes  out  of  the  mines, 
who  were  not  directly  engaged  in  mining 
coal,  and  necessarily  that  my  testimony 
would  indicate  that  wages  were  forty-two 
per  cent,  lower  than  they  really  were  at 
that  time;  and  since  that  time  there 
have  been  further  increases  of  some  sixty 
per  cent.  Q.  Now,  what  have  been  the 
increases  in  the  anthracite  wages?  A. 
There  has  been  an  increase  or  ten  per- 
cent., generally  speaking.  Q.  What,  since 
1898,  have  been  the  increases  in  the 
bituminous  region?  A.  Since  1893?  Q. 
Yes.  A.  There  was  an  increase  of  eigh- 
teen per  cent,  in  the  spring  of  1S9S,  and 
an  increase  of  twenty-one  one-hun- 
dredths per  cent,  in  the  spring  of  1990. 
There  was  also  an  increase  of  eleven  per 
cent.  paid  in  the  fall  of  1S97 — at  the  clos^ 
of  the  strike  of  1897.  Q.  Were  those  in 
the  districts  which  are  organized,  or 
were  they  general?  A.  They  were  in  the 
districts  where  we  are  organized.  Q.  You 
do  not  speak  about  the  industry  general- 
ly— or  do  you?  A.  Very  generally,  be- 
cause we  are  organized  in  the  industry 
very  generally. 

Q.  I noticed  that  you  stated  in  Collier's 
Weekly  that  the  earnings  of  the  anthra- 
cite workers  are  less  than  those  of  any 
other  class  of  working  men  in  the 
United  States.  Now',  upon  what  compari- 
son do  you  base  that  statement?  A.  Re- 
ference to  the  income  of  different  classes 
of  workingmen,  from  the  scales  of  wages 
made  by  their  organizations,  and  the 
scales  prevailing  in  the  communities.  Q. 
And  do  you  intend  to  produce  those  data? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 


16 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


$1.01  Per  Work  Day. 

Q.  What  are  the  wages  of  the  anthra- 
cite workers  with  which  you  make  the 
comparison?  Will  you  state  them?  A. 
The  wages  of  the  anthracite  mine  work- 
ers, using  Mr.  Baer’s  published  state- 
ments as  a basis,  are  a little  less  than 
$1.01  for  each  day  in  the  year.  He  says 
that  the  income  of  his  employes— that  his 
employes  receive  $1.S9  a day  for  each 
work  day,  and  I used  his  statements  in 
my  calculations.  Q.  That  is,  you  apply 
his  statements  to  the  whole  region?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  then  do  you  divide  the 
total  amount  earned  by  the  total  num- 
ber of  employes?  A.  I simply  took  his 
statements  of  wages  and  applied  it  to  all 
the  men.  I assumed  that  it  was  a fair 
average— a fair  criterion— as  to  what 
they  were  earning  in  all  the  other  com- 
panies’ mines.  I believe  that  to  be  true, 
because  that  company  pays  as  high  a 
rate  of  wages  as  paid  by  other  com- 
panies. Q.  Do  you  know  that?  A.  I 
know  by  comparison  of  the  tables  of 
earnings  that  the  Reading  company's 
wages  are  up  to  the  average.  Q.  As  I 
say  again,  when  you  get  at  this  matter, 
do  you  make  the  total  number  of  men 
employed,  irrespective  of  whether  they 
worked  every  day,  or  whether  as  one  of 
the  members  of  the  industrial  commis- 
sion suggested  to  you,  some  of  them 
have  died,  or  what?  A.  Well,  I say  that 
I simply  took  the  statement  of  Mr.  Baer 
— yes,  certainly.  I divided  it  among  the 
365  days  in  the  year.  Q.  And  you  regard 
the  yearly  earnings  as  the  proper  ci'iter- 
ion?  A.  Certainly.  Q.  And  not  the  daily 
earnings?  A.  Certainly.  I regard  the  an- 
nual earnings  of  a man  as  the  only  fair 
basis,  as  he  has  to  eat  365  days  in  the 
year. 

Q.  Now,  let  me  ask  you.  in  reference  to 
your  demands,  what  they  amount  te. 
The  first  demand  is  for  a horizontal  ad- 
vance on  all  contract  work,  an  advance 
of  twenty  per  cent.,  as  I understand  it, 
irrespective  of  present  earnings?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  Q.  And  the  second  is  for  an  increase 
in  the  case  of  all  day  work,  of  twenty 
per  cent.,  irrespective  of  present  earn- 
ings? A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  Now.  the  third  is 
weighing  and  paying  for  coal  by  the  ton 
of  2,240  pounds,  at  a minimum  of  sixty 
cents  per  ton.  That  is  it,  isn’t  it?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  Now.  is  this  included  in  the 
first  demand,  or  is  it  merely  a different 
method  of  demand?  A.  The  twenty  per 
cent,  would  be  added  to  the  present  prices, 
under  the  present  methods,  and  the  meth- 
ods would  be  changed,  and  the  reduction 
made  to  the  sixty  cents  as  a minimum 
price  per  ton.  Q.  Then  it  is  not  a de- 
mand that  the  contract  work  shall  be 
further  increased  and  the  miners  shall 
be  paid  at  the  rate  which  you  suggest, 
not  for  merchandise  coal,  but  the  sub- 
stance which  they  send  out  of  the  mines? 
A.  The  demand  is  for  sixty  cents  a ton 
for  run  of  mine  coal.  I presume  that 
everybody  is  familiar — 

Run  of  Mine  Coal. 

Q.  When  you  say  “run  of  mine  coal’’ 
you  mean  coal  before  it  is  cleared  of  its 
impurities  by  being  put  through  the 
breakers?  A.  It  is  before  it  passes 
through  the  breaker.  Q.  Before  it 
passes  through  the  breaker?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
0.  Then  would  not  that  really  mean  a 
demand  for  a very  considerable  addition 
to  the  amount  payable  for  contract  work 
over  and  above  the  twenty  per  cent.?  A. 
1 am  not  aware  that  it  would,  although 
1 have  not— I will  say  that  the  matter 
has  been  very  carefully  calculated  by  the 


anthracite  mine  workers  themselves,  and 
I am  not  entirely  sure  as  to  what  the 
difference  would  be;  but  on  what  infor- 
mation I have.  I presume  that  sixty  cents 
a ton  is  not  a high  price  to  pay  the 
miners  for  mining  anthracite  coal.  It  is 
the  same  price  that  is  paid  for  mining 
bituminous  coal.  Q.  You  regard  it  really, 
therefore,  as  a branch  of  the  first  de- 
mand? A.  It  is.  Q.  Not  as  a demand  for 
something  in  addition?  A.  I do  not  un- 
derstand that  it  is  asking  for  more  than 
an  increase  of  twenty  per  cent.  Q.  Well, 
suppose  it  should  turn  out  that  it  were 
to  that  extent,  you  would  be  inclined  to 
withdraw  it.  Is  that  the  idea?  A.  That 
depends  entirely  on  how  your  calcula- 
tions were  made.  If  the  companies  have 
during  recent  years  forced  men  to  put  on 
more  topping,  and  have  increased  the 
size  of  their  car  arbitrarily,  of  course 
the  increase  in  the  wages  of  the  miners 
should  not  be  calculated  upon  the  basis 
of  the  additional  coal  they  have  been 
compelled  to  load.  Their  increase  ought 
to  be  twenty  per  cent,  upon  the  wages 
paid  for  the  established  ton  and  the 
standard  car — not  the  car  that  has  been 
introduced  the  past  few  years. 

Q.  That  standard,  you  think,  ought  to 
be  re-adjusted,  so  as  to  bring  it  to  twen- 
ty-two hundred  and  forty  pounds.  A.  l 
think  that  whatever  was  the  standard 
car,  the  standard  weight  should  be  used 
as  a basis  of  the  advance  in  wages.  Q. 
Now,  one  of  your  arguments  which  you 
use  in  your  demands  is  that  when  the 
companies  load  and  sell  coal,  or  rather, 
when  they  ship  and  sell  coal,  they  ship  it 
by  a ton  of  twenty-two  hundred  and 
forty  pounds.  Yell,  that  is  mer- 
chantable coal,  it  is  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Tha.t  is  coal  which  has  gone  through 
the  breaker? 

A.  It  is  coal,  some  of  it  coming  from 
the  washeries;  coal  of  all  characters.  Q. 
I am  referring  to  fresh  mined  coal  now? 
A.  Yes.  Q.  That  is  what  your  demand 
refers  to — fresh  mined  coal,  is  it  not?  a. 
Not  necessarily.  If  coal  is  marketed 
that  first  goes  to  the  culm  piles,  the  miners 
should  be  paid  for  it.  He  should  be  paid 
for  any  part  of  the  coal  that  the  com- 
panies market. 

Merchantable  Coal. 

Q.  If  a man  mines  coal  and  sends  out  a 
car  of  coal  that  has  to  be  put  through 
the  breaker  in  order  to  produce  mer- 
chantable coal,  does  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  And  therefore  the  ton  which  the  com- 
panies sell  and  ship  is  merchantable  coal, 
while  the  substance  which  the  miner 
sends  out  contains  a large  amount  of  im- 
purities. or  a considerable  amount  of  im- 
purities, and  therefore  it  has  to  be  put 
through  the  breaker?  A.  Yes.  sir.  Q.  So 
that  they  are  really  two  different  sub- 
stances, are  they  not?  A.  Yes,  it  is  true 
that  the  foreign  substance  that  is  sent 
out  with  the  miners’  coal  should  not  be 
paid  for.  We  do  not  ask  that,  and  we 
propose  to  reduce  the  general  price  of 
mining  so  as  to  compensate  the  company 
for  it.  But  the  coal  that  is  sent  to  the 
culm  piles,  and  that  is  afterwards  mar- 
keted through  the  process  of  washing, 
the  miner  should  be  compensated  for 
that.  Q.  Ts  there  any  sent  to  the  culm 
piles  now?  A.  I understand  there  is.  Q. 
To  any  extent?  A.  I am  not  sure  to 
what  extent.  O.  To  a very  small  extent, 
is  it  not?  A.  I do  not  know. 

Q.  Well  have  you  computed  the  re- 
sult of  these  demands  with  reference  to 
the  operation  of  any  particular  colliery? 
A.  Pe---nally,  1 have  not.  Our  commit- 


tees from  this  district  or  the  district 
where  we  hope  to  have  it  applied,  and 
where  we  believe  it  is  practicable,  have 
made  calculations,  and  of  course  will  be 
able  to  explain  that  better  than  I can 
myself.  Q.  Well,  the  result  of  the  twen- 
ty per  cent,  demand  would  be,  of  course, 
an  addition  of  twenty  per  cent,  to  the 
wage  cost,  the  labor  cost  of  the  coal, 
would  it  not?  A.  Y'es  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  the  wages  that 
are  paid  now  in  the  region  here  are 
about  sixty  million  dollars?  A.  I have 
not  seen  that  statement  made.  Q.  Do  not 
you,  or  your  committees,  know  it?  A. 
No.  sir;  we  do  not.  Q.  If  it  is  sixty  mil- 
lion dollars,  this  is  a demand  of  twelve 
million  dollars  to  be  added  to  the  cost 
of  production,  is  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir.  on 
that  calculation,  that  is  true.  That 
would  be  about  twelve  or  thirteen  cents  a 
ton.  Q.  Y’ou  say  you  will  furnish  to  the 
commission  and  to  us,  a statement  of 
these  demands,  worked  out  with  refer- 
ence to  some  of  the  collieries?  A.  We 
propose  to  ask  Mr.  Nicholls  to  testify 
upon  that  very  phase  of  it,  as  he  >s 
thoroughly  familiar  with  the  subject, 
and  he  would  probably  be  able  to  ex- 
plain it  much  better  than  I can  myself. 

Q.  Now,  you  spoke  of  the  average  pay 
per  day  upon  which  you  are  basing  your 
testimony  and  your  views  as  31.01.  A.  No; 
I simply  said  that  on  a calculation,  tak- 
ing the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Baer,  it 
amounted  to  $1.01  a day  for  365  days  in 
the  year.  Q.  It  is  upon  that  you  are 

basing  your . A.  (.Interrupting.)  Not 

by  any  means.  I do  not  know  whether 
that  is  correct  or  not.  It  may  not  be  as 
high  as  that,  or  it  may  be  more.  I have 
examined  the  earnings  of  the  anthracite 
mine  workers — all  classes  of  them— and 
find  they  are  insufficient.  Q.  To  what 
point  do  you  expect  to  bring  them  up.  *f 
these  demands  are  granted?  A.  At  what 
time? 

A Twenty  Per  Cent.  Increase. 

Q.  To  what  point  do  you  expect  to 
bring  them  up?  A.  We  ask  to  have  them 
brought  up  twenty  per  cent.  Q.  If  the 
wages  average  only  $1.01  now,  do  you 
mean  that  1.21  would  strike  you  as 
proper?  A.  I do  not  think  that  the 
miners  have  asked  for  enough.  I sup- 
pose if  they  had  known  that  the  matter 
was  going  to  be  submitted  to  a board  of 
arbitration,  they  would  have  asked  to 
have  the  wages  fixed  right  when  they 
are  doing  it.  (Daughter.) 

Q.  Well,  I suppose  that  we  will  all 
agree  that  that  would  have  been  likely. 
(Laughter.)  But  you  testified,  and  you 
put  out  these  statements,  that  the  aver- 
age earnings  are  $1.01  per  day,  and  you 
say  there  is  a demand  for  a twenty  per 
cent,  increase.  Now,  I want  to  know  up 
to  what  point  you  expect  to  bring  the 
wages  in  order  to  make  them  what 
would  be  considered  sufficient?  A.  Y’ou 
must  remember  that  I took  Mr.  Baer’s 
statement;  quoted  it,  and  then  analyzed 
it.  Q.  Y’es.  A That  it  is  his  statement 
that  I am  treating  with  in  my  articles; 
that  I simply  analyzed  the  statement 
given  out  by  the  president  of  the  Phila- 
delphia and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  com- 
pany, and  analyzed  it.  It  amounts  to 
$1.01  per  day,  at  365  days  in  the  year,  so 
that  the  average  income  of  the  miners  is 
$36S,  and  that  is  insufficient. 

Q.  Your  computation  includ  s Sundays 
also,  does  it  not?  Yes.  sir;  i explained 
that.  My  statement  itself  is  fully  ex- 
planatory of  all  that. 

Q.  The  365  days  include  Sundays,  of 


course.  (Laughter.)  And  holidays.  (Laugh- 
ter.) Now.  how  much  do  you  think  that 
the  average  pay  ought  to  come  up  to?  A. 
I think  it  ought  to  come  up  to  $600  a year 
for  each  adult  employed  in  the  anthra- 
cite mines.  I think  that  every  boy  under 
sixteen  years  of  age  ought  to  have  not 
less  than  $1  a day  for  eight  hours  work. 

Q.  And  365  days? 

A.  No,  sir.  For  each  day  that  the  mine 
works,  the  boy  should  receive,  for  eight 
hours'  work,  not  less  than  $1  a day;  that 
is,  boys  under  sixteen  years  of  age— your 
breaker  boys,  I mean. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  all  day  laborers 
ought  to  have  $600  a year? 

A.  I think  that  all  heads  of  families 
ought  to  have  $600  a year. 

Q.  You  make  a distinction  between 
heads  of  families  and  those  who  are  not 
married? 

A.  I would  ask  that  for  all  adult  em- 
ployes. 

Q.  All  the  laborers  of  every  kind,  you 
think  ought  to  have  $600  a year? 

A.  I think  that  should  be  the  minimum 
wage  of  all  men  working. 

Q.  Now  you  have  j'our  ideas  as  to  Mr. 
Baer's  statement  not  being  high  enough, 
or  low  enough,  or  whatever  it  is? 

Slate  Pickers’  Wages. 

A.  I do  not  know  about  it.  The  state- 
ment itself  is  susceptible  of  several  inter- 
pretations. For  instance,  Mr.  Baer  says 
that  the  lowest  wage  paid  is  boy  slate 
pickers,  at  85  cents  a day.  That  would 
appear  to  be  an  incorrect  statement,  al- 
though I have  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Baer 
can  explain  it  satisfactorily.  We  know 
that  they  do  not  pay  85  cents  a day  for 
boy  slate  pickers.  We  do  know  that  some 
boys  receive  that,  but  they  receive  much 
less  than  that  also. 

Q.  Then  you  think  the  average  is  less 
than  $1.01  a dav? 

A.  I do  not  know. 

Q.  Well,  if  the  wages  are  $368,  don't 
you  think  your  statement  that  the  aver- 
age wages  were  less  than  $300  was  not  al- 
together correct?  A.  My  first  public  state- 
ment was  made  upon  information  from 
other  sources.  It  was  not  upon  Mr. 
Baer’s  statement.  In  my  first  statement 
I had  made  that  calculation  by  dividing 
what  I understood  to  be  the  total  amount 
paid  in  wages — I forget  now  just  how 
much  it  was,  but  it  was  sometning  like 
$45,000,000.  I do  not  know  whether  that 
tvas  it  or  not.  Q.  You  make  a compari- 
son between  the  wages  in  the  anthracite 
field  and  the  bituminous  field  or  regions. 
You  say  that  the  wages  are  40  to  50  per 
cent,  higher  in  the  bituminous  regions? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  What  bituminous  regions 
do  you  refer  to?  A.  I refer  to  the  bitumin- 
ous regions  of  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  In- 
diana, Iowa,  Illinois,  Kansas,  Missouri, 
Arkansas,  Indian  Territory,  Michigan— 

Q.  Does  not  your  organization  in  some 
respects  restrict  the  quantity  of  work? 
A.  No,  sir.  On  the  contrary,  our  organ- 
ization has  increased  the  intensity  of 
work.  Q.  I mean  the  work  of  each  indi- 
vidual? A.  No  sir.  Q.  Suppose  a man 
should  desire  to  improve  his  circum- 
stances by  working,  additional  hours  for 
extra  pay,  by  producing  more  than  the 
average  in  a given  time,  what  would  be 
your  view  as  to  that?  A.  We  regulate 
the  hours  of  labor  by  agreement.  Q. 
You  would  not  allow  men  to  work  over 
hours?  O.  We  would  not  allow  them  to 
violate  the  agreement. 

Q.  But  suppose  he  wanted  to  produce 
more  than  the  average  quantity,  what 
would  be  your  position  as  to  that?  A.  We 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


do  not  fix  the  amount  of  work  any  person 
shall  do— that  is,  within  a given  number 
of  hours.  We  have  no  restrictions  or  lim- 
itations upon  the  amount  of  work  a man 
shall  perform,  although  in  all  coal  mines, 
the  man’s  labor  is  regulated  very  largely 
by  the  distribution  of  cars,  which  is  with- 
in the  hands  of  the  company,  where  they 
usually  give  each  man  or  set  ot  men  the 
same  number  of  ca.rs. 

Q Well,  this  paper  regarding  the  Hazle- 
ton convention  of  August  27,  1900,  which  I 
showed  to  you,  giving  their  resolution, 
provided  that  no  miner  shall  have  at  any 
time  more  than  one  breast,  gangway  or 
working  place,  and  shall  not  get  more 
than  an  equal  share  of  cars  to  work?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

About  Extra  Work. 

Q.  Now,  suppose  that  a miner  were  able 
to  work  more  than  one  breast  or  gangway 
in  his  eight  or  ten  hours,  as  the  case 
might  be,  you  would  be  oposed  to  that, 
would  you  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  if  one  man  could  do  more  work 
than  another,  by  reason  of  greater  in- 
dustry, or  greater  capacity,  you  would  be 
opposed  to  that,  would  you  not?  A.  I 
should  say  that  it  would  be  necessary  to 
explain  the  scale  you  are  reading,  and 
give  an  exact  and  clear  understanding  as 
to  what  it  meant.  The  resolution  was 
simply  intended  to  prevent  some  men  who 
were  more  favored  than  others  by  the 
companies  from  getting  all  the  coal  they 
could  load  and  employing  extra  labor  to 
do  it  for  them,  while  some  other  man  not 
so  fortunate  would  remain  in  the  mines 
all  day  without  getting  his  share  of  coal. 

Q.  I do  not  think  you  have  answered 
my  question  exactly.  A.  I should  be  op- 
posed to  it;  yes;  for  the  reasons  I have 
just  stated. 

Q.  Suppose  it  was  not  a matter  of 
favoritism.  Suppose  these  reasons  did  not 
exist;  you  would  be  opposed  to  one  miner 
getting  the  chance  to  do  more  work  than 
another?  A.  I should  be  opposed  to  his 
getting  the  chance  to  do  more  work  than 
another  if  it  were  taking  part  of  the  work 
from  the  other  man.  I should  not  oppose, 
and  I do  not  oppose  a man’s  performing 
all  the  work  he  can,  expending  all  the 
energy  he  pleases,  .within  a certain  num- 
ber of  hours.  We  do  believe,  however,  in 
regulating  his  work  by  fixing  the  hours 
of  labor. 

Q.  Yes,  but  suppose  that  by  reason  of 
his  physical  capacity  he  is  able  to  perform 
a greater  amount  of  work  than  another 
man,  to  load  more  cars,  this  resolution 
would  seem  to  be  opposed  to  that?  A.  I 
should  think  not.  If  he  were  strong  and 
able  to  load  more  cars  than  another  with- 
in  a given  number  of  hours,  he  would 
be  permitted  to  do  so.  The  resolution 
prevents  somebody  else  from  loading  them 
for  him.  That  is  to  say,  it  would  pre- 
vent him  from  hiring  several  laborers,  if 
he  wanted  to,  and  carrying  on  his  con- 
tract work  as  rapidly  as  he  could. 

A.  It  would  prevent  him  from  hiring  a 
large  number  of  laborers  to  work  for  him. 

Q.  Yes,  although  he  is  a contract  work- 
er? 

A.  Yes.  sir. 

Judge  Gray  Inquires. 

The  Chairman:  Does  that  mean  that  if 
I can  in  ^ight  hours  blast  out  and  throw 
down  enough  coal  to  load  ten  cars,  and 
you  can  blast  out  and  throw  down  only 
enough  to  load  six  cars  in  the  same  time, 
that  I shall  not  be  permitted  to  do  it? 

Mr.  Mitchell:  No.  it  does  not  mean 

that.  It  would  not  place  any  restriction 


17 


upon  the  amount  of  work  you  would  do 
under  those  conditions  in  ten  hours  at 
all.  It  would  simply  provide  that  you 
would  do  it  in  ten  hours. 

The  Chairman:  Exactly.  If  I had 

blasted  out  and  threw  down  enough  coal 
to  employ  two,  it  mans  that  I should 
not  be  allowed  to  employ  the  third 
laborer. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Yes,  that  you  should  not 
be  allowed  to  employ  the  third  laborer, 
because  they  could  not  load  your  coal  in 
one  place;  when  they  do  that  it  would 
be  necessary  for  you  to  have  more  than 
one  breast,  and  necessarily  you  could 
not  comply  with  the  law  of  Pennsylvania 
in  looking  out  for  the  safety  of  your 
laborers.  You  can  only  take  care  of  the 
safety  of  your  laborer,  and  comply  with 
the  law  by  being  with  him  and  working 
with  him. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  Q.  Do  you  know  it  is 
the  fact  that  the  miners  do  not  stay  in 
where  the  coal  is  being  blasted?  A.  They 
do  go  out  somewhat  earlier  in  the  even- 
ing at  times.  Q.  Do  you  know  enough 
about  it  practically  to  know  that  they 
almost  always  do,  and  leave  the  laborers 
to  load  the  coal  after  they  are  gone?  A. 

I do  not  know  that  that  is  always  true. 
The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  a very  large 
number  of  anthracite  miners  work  part- 
ners—do  it  voluntarily — and  they  do  not 
have  the  contract  and  labor  system  that 
is  very  largely  followed  In  this  region 
right  here.  In  other  places,  the  contract 
miner  goes  into  the  mine  earlier  in  the 
morning  than  the  laborer,  and  leaves  him 
at  night,  after  he  has  fired  all  of  his 
shots,  protecting  his  place  by  props  and 
everything  like  that,  that  is  necessary. 

Q.  He  does  not  wait  to  look  out  for 
his  laborer’s  safety,  does  he?  A.  He  has 
already  done  it  by  leaving  the  place  se- 
cure before  he  goes  home. 

Q.  I thought  you  stated  the  law  of 
Pennsylvania  required  him  to  stay  there 
to  look  out  for  the  laborer’s  safety,  whiie 
he  was  loading  the  coal.  Y‘ou  may  with- 
draw that  statement  if  you  do  not  mean 
it,  of  course.  A.  I do  not  wish  to  with- 
draw it,  but  I wish  to  reiterate  it.  1 
spoke  of  a man  in  the  first  instance  who 
was  working  more  than  one  breast  and 
necessarily  if  he  were  loading  coal  and 
had  several  different  laborers  working, 
he  must  be  blasting  coal  during  the  day, 
and  he  could  not  protect  his  laborers.  It 
was  a different  thing  than  his  staying  in 
there  until  after  quitting  time  at  night, 
setting  all  his  props  and  protecting  his 
place,  and  then  going  home.  Those 
would  be  entirely  different  conditions. 

Has  Worked  in  Mines. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  he  could  not  pro-  _ 
tect  his  laborers?  You  have  not  worked 
in  the  mines,  have  you?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
In  anthracite  mines?  A.  No,  sir.  Q. 
That  is  merely  your  argument?  A.  I am 
speaking  from  my  general  information  on 
the  subject. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  Would  your 

organization  permit  a miner  to  engage 
three  laborers  if  he  could  employ  them 
with  safety  and  load  ten  cars,  say? 

Mr.  Mitchell:  No.  The  organization  is 
opposed  to  miners  employing  more  than 
one  laborer.  The  anthracite  miners  find 
that  the  other  system  introduced  in  this 
field  has  done  them  a great  deal  of 
harm.  I might  say  that  this  matter  is 
entirely  local  to  the  anthracite  field,  and 
regulated  by  the  anthracite  mine  workers 
themselves.  It  is  no  well  defined  policy 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 
It  is  simply  a regulation  that  the  miners 


18 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


of  the  anthracite  field  find  is  necessary 
to  protect  themselves  against  favoritism, 
and  against  the  one  man  going  out  and 
hiring  a lot  of  laborers  and  bringing 
them  in  and  having  them  work  for  him, 
he  being  unable  to  protect  them  properly 
against  the  dangers  of  mining. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  Q.  I think  this  ques- 
tion and  answer  before  the  industrial 
commission  perhaps  expresses  your  atti- 
tude on  that  subject.  It  is  on  page  48  of 
volume  12.  I read  it  yesterday.  Q.  Do 
you  think  it  is  hoggish  for  a man  to 
want  to  get  along  in  the  world?  A.  If 
he  does  it  at  the  expense  of  somebody 
else.  Working  long  hours  on  the  part  of 
one  man  necessarily  means  that  some 
other  man  may  have  to  work  long 
hours.”  You  remember  that?  A.  I re- 
call that.  That,  in  effect,  expresses  my 
opinion  now. 

Q.  What  would  you  think  of  discon- 
tinuing contract  work  and  the  operators 
hiring  all  the  men  by  the  day?  A.  I am 
not  able  to  answer  what  the  effect  would 
be  in  this  field.  Q.  You  have  not  con- 
sidered that  question?  A.  I have  not.  Q. 
It  would  do  away  with  all  questions  of 
docking  and  weighing,  would  it  not?  A. 
Well,  that  would  follow,  I presume.  Q. 
Then,  if  it  would  enforce  efficiency  among 
them  it  would  be  extremely  simple,  be- 
cause the  friction  that  I speak  of  would 
disappear?  A.  I do  not  know  enough 
about  how  practicable  it  would  be  in  the 
anthracite  field. 

Q.  Suppose  that  were  done,  what  would 
you  consider  proper  day  wages  for  a 
miner?  A.  I do  not  know  enough  about 
the  practicability  of  it;  in  fact,  I 
suppose  it  would  be  impracticable. 
Otherwise,  it  would  have  been  done 
some  time  ago.  Q.  That  is  you  only  rea- 
son for  your  answer,  is  it?  A.  Well,  I 
do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

The  Bight  to  Hire. 

Reading  from  the  working  agreement 
between  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators’  as- 
sociation and  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, Mr.  Willcox  sought  to  show  that 
the  right  of  the  employer  to  hire  and 
discharge  was  surrounded  with  such 
limitations  imposed  by  the  union  that 
the  right  was  practically  nullified. 

After  referring  to  Mr.  Mitchell’s  dec- 
laration that  the  bituminous  operators 
generally  were  well  satisfied  with  their 
contract  agreements  with  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  Mr.  Wilcox  read  from 
an  interview  with  the  Illinois  Coal 
Operators’  commissioner,  Herman  Justi, 
in  which  he  declared  the  commission 
had  refused  to  accede  to  the  request  of 
the  mine  workers  to  give  testimony,  by 
means  of  written  answers  to  questions 
propounded  by  the  union  regarding 
their  views>  of  the  mine  workers’  union 
in  that  state.  Mr.  Willcox  also  an- 
nounced that  members  of  the  Illinois 
association  would  be  here  to  testify  to 
the  contrary  from  that  which  the  union 
would  have  them  state. 

By  Mr.  Willcox: 

Q.  You  have  testified  in  regard  to  the 
number  of  accidents  occurring  in  the 
mine.  Do  you  know  what  proportion  of 
those  accidents  has  been  due  to  negligence 
on  the  part  of  the  unfortunate  peonle 
suffering  them?  A.  T do  not  know  that 
any  of  them  were.  Q.  Do  you  not  know 
that  the  mine  Inspectors’  report  specify 
GTr.,.,f  nf  the'-  « t;Hi» 

<.ui:r.  U L.  rto-.rU  ;un<. u of  the  parties  who 


suffered  the  accidents?  A.  I do  not  know 
that  that  is  true;  I have  not  been  able 
to  see  in  that  inspector's  reports. 

Q.  You  testified  that  you  distributed 
about  a million  and  a half  dollars  of  re- 
lief? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  when  the  mines 
are  running  the  wages  are  over  a million 
dollars  a week? 

A.  Well,  I do  not  know  that.  Possibly— 
Q.  You  understand  it,  don't  you,  like  a 
good  many  other  things  you  have  testi- 
fied to — you  have  heard  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I have  heard  that  state- 
ment. 

Q.  Can  you  give  the  names  of  any  non- 
union men  who  were  relieved?  A.  I can- 
not give  you  their  names  myself,  but  I 
presume  our  district  officers  can  supply 
their  names. 

Q.  Now  you  testified  that  no  strike  was 
ever  called  on  account  of  refusal  to 
work  with  non-union  men;  you  mean  no 
general  strike,  I suppose?  A.  I do  not 
know  of  strikes  being  called  at  all  by  the 
organization  for  refusal  to  work  with 
non-union  men.  Q.  But  you  know  of 
strikes  having  taken  place  on  that  pre- 
cise ground,  don't  you?  A.  I have  heard 
that  strikes  have  taken  place  of  that 
character.  Q.  Do  you  know  of  the  strike 
at  the  Maltby  mines?  A.  Yes,  sir,  I have 
heard  of  it.  Q.  Was  not  that  for  that 
reason?  A.  That  among  other  reasons. 

I understand.  Q.  And  that  lasted  twelve 
months?  A.  Yes.  sir. 

Wouldn’t  Express  Opinion. 

In  response  to  a question  as  to  his 
position  regarding  members  of  labor 
unions  being  members  of  the  National 
guard,  Mr.  Mitchell  declined  to  say 
whether  or  not  he  sympathized  with 
various  resolutions  that  were  passed  by 
labor  unions  calling  on  union  men  to 
refrain  from  joining  the  guard,  saying 
he  would  not  want  to  criticize  resolu- 
tions without  knowing  their  exact  lan- 
guage. He  believed  members  of  labor 
unions  should  exercise  the  same  rights 
and  privileges  as  every  one  else  in  that 
respect. 

With  this,  Mr.  Wfllcox  concluded  his 
examination,  and  the  witness  was 
turned  over  to  Hon.  Wayne  MacVeagh 
of  counsel  for  the  Pennsylvania  Coal 
company  and  the  Hillside  Coal  and 
Iron  company.  While  this  cross-exam- 
•ination  proceeded,  E.  B.  Thomas,  chair- 
man of  the  Erie  board  of  directors,  and 
W.  A.  May,  general  manager  of  the 
Erie’s  coal  department,  sat  near  at 
hand.  J.  C.  Brownell,  of  New  Y“ork, 
and  Major  Everett  Warren,  of  Scran- 
ton, Who  are  also  counsel  for  the  Penn- 
sylvania and  Hillside  companies,  fre- 
quently suggested  questions  that  Mr. 
MacVeagh  should  put  to  the  witness. 
The  cross-examination  continued  dur- 
ing the  last  twenty  minutes  of  the 
morning  session  and  all  the  afternoon. 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh:  Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  I 
assume  you  heard  the  statement  made  to 
the  commission  that  Major  Waren,  Mr. 
Brownell  and  I represent  the  Pennsylva- 
nia Coal  company  and  the  Hillside  Coat 
and  Iron  coarr.pany? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  it  is  with  reference  to  those 
two  companies  that  I particularly  wish 

t o-- O ‘ vh"’  — > '1  i tint 

th.rv  shat!  be  no  mlcundv* r .unCinj  be- 


tween you  and  me,  I do  not  want  you  to 
imagine  for  a moment  that  I am  opposed 
to  the  proper  organization  of  working 
men  and  the  protection  of  their  interests, 
especially  when  employes  of  a consider- 
able corporation,  I not  only  firmly  be- 
lieve in  their  right,  but  I think  in  very 
many  instances  it  is  their  interest;  and 
I do  not  want  you  to  suppose  for  a 
moment  that  the  gentlemen  whom  I rep- 
present  think  they  are  infallible,  or  that 
they  have  managed  these  two  properties 
in  the  best  possible  manner.  They  are 
quite  aware  that  they  may  have  been 
guilty  of  derelictions  of  duty  toward  the 
people  in  their  employ,  and,  if  so,  they 
believe  you  wish  to  assist  the  commission 
in  learning  the  truth  about  those  dere- 
lictions, so  that  the  commission  can 
reach  just  conclusions.  Now7,  what  I 
wish  you  to  do  is  to  state  in  your  own 
way  and  order  to  the  commission  where- 
in you  think  the  owners  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Coal  company  and  the  Hillside 
Coal  and  Iron  company  have  failed  in 
their  duties  to  their  emploj  es. 

Not  Familiar  with.  Conditions. 

A.  Why,  I am  not  familiar,  of  course, 
with  the  local  conditions  under  each  sep- 
arate company.  I think  that  the  Hillside 
company  and  the  other  company  repre- 
sented or  owTned  by  the  Pennsylvania 
Coal  company  have  been  in  about  the 
same  position  that  other  companies  have; 
that  they  have  failed  to  pay  wages  suffi- 
ciently high;  that  they  have  failed  to  es- 
tablish conditions  of  employment  that 
were  fair;  that  they  have  a wrong  sys- 
tem of  measuring  the  earnings  of  the 
miners,  and  that  their  opposition  to  the 
treatment  of  the  men,  as  organized  men, 
has  not  been  for  the  best. 

Q.  If  you  had  not  personal  knowledge 
sufficient  to  enable  you  to  formulate 
these  demands  for  changes  in  our  rela- 
tions to  our  employes,  who  did  formu- 
late them? 

A.  The  representatives  of  the  various 
coal  companies,  among  them  representa- 
tives from  the  mines  operated  by  this 
company. 

Q.  Who  were  they,  as  to  the  two  com- 
panies we  represent? 

A.  I am  not  familiar  w7ith  their  names 
I presume — 

Q.  Anybody  may  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Nicholls  will  probably  be  able  to, 
or  he  may  have  represented  them  him- 
self—Mr.  Nicholls,  who  is  the  district 
president  in  this  particular  section. 

Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  I wish  you  could  fully 
assure  me  that  if  I ask  you  any  question 
which  can  be  better  answered  by  . some- 
body else,  you  will  promptly  appeal  to 
him  for  an  answer,  lily  only  object  is  to 
get  at  the  facts  for  the  commission. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Mr.  Nicholls  and  Mr.  Col- 
lins had  special  charge . 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  Of  making  these  de- 
mands? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes,  as  the  delegates . 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  Covering  tne  district  in 
which  these  two  collieries  are  located? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes. 

Witness:  It  will,  help  matters  very 

much,  possibly,  if  I explain  how  they 
make  those  scales.  We  have  a delegate 
convention,  in  which  representatives  at- 
tend from  every  local  union,  which 
means  every  mine.  They  then  select  a 
scale  committee,  who  are  to  formulate 
the  demands.  Each  delegate  can  appear 
befo'-e  that  cemmitte  and  tell  them  ex- 
petiv  whot  ho  thjoVs  would  he  necessary 
at  the  hi,  reiver. nts.  ru  that  the 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


19 


committee  have  information  direct  from 
the  employes  of  the  company. 

After  considerable  questioning-  Mr. 
MacVeagh  succeeded  in  getting  Mr. 
Mitchell  to  admit  he  did  not  know, 
just  then,  what  wages  the  Erie  com- 
pany paid  its  employes. 

The  First  Demand. 

Q.  Now,  I say,  as  to  the  first  demand, 
as  to  the  increase  of  wages,  whatever  you 
may  be  prepared  to  do  this  afternoon, 
you  are  not  prepared  now  to  ask  for  an  in- 
crease of  those  wages,  because  you  do  not 
know  what  the  present  wages  are'.' 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I am  perfectly  prepared  to 
ask  for  an  increa.se  in  wages,  although  I 
have  not  got  the  tables  of  the  present 
earnings  here.  (Laughter.) 

Q.  Well,  I quite  admit  you  can  be  pre- 
pared to  ask  for  them,  but  are  you  pre- 
pared seriously  to  ask  other  responsible 
gentlemen  to  grant  them? 

A.  Well,  I can  only  say  that  I have  not 
the  statistics  here  to  submit  at  this  time. 

Q.  And  therefore  at  present  you  are  not 
prepared  to  substantiate  that  demand? 

A.  I do  not  say  I am  not  prepared, 
except  that  I am  not  prepared  to  state  the 
figures  as  to . the  Hillside  and  Pennsyl- 
vania Coal  companies. 

Q.  And  therefore  at  present  you  are  not 
prepared  to  substantiate  your  demand? 

A.  Well,  I should  say  simply  that  I am 
not  prepared  to  submit  the  evidence  to 
substantiate  it,  that  is  all. 

The  remainder  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion was  taken  up  in  an  examination 
of  the  witness  regarding  his  claims  that 
mining  conditions  are  substantially 
similar  in  the  anthracite  and  bitum- 
inous regions.  Mr.  Mitchell  admitted 
that  the  demand  for  bituminous  is 
growing-  more  rapidly  than  that  for  an- 
thracite, but  denied  that  bituminous 
mines  worked  more  steadily  than  an- 
thracite mines. 

At  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  ses- 
sion, Mr.  Mitchell  made  the  following 
correction  to  his  testimony  of  the  morn- 
ing, regarding  the  disposition  of  the 
resolutions  of  the  Shamokin  conven- 
tion: 

The  Witness:  ‘Moved  the  four  resolu- 
tions calling  strikes  at  different  collieries 
on  April  1st  be  referred  to  the  three  dis-( 
trict  executive  boards.  Motion  carried.” 
These  were  the  resolutions  which  had 
been  formally  adopted,  authorizing 
strikes. 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh: 

Q.  Before  I leave  that  question  of  the 
bituminous  market  and  the  anthracite 
market,  I would  like  to  ask  whether  you 
are  aware  of  the  fact  that  substantially 
there  is  no  market  for  anthracite  coal  for 
manufacturing  purposes  except  the  refuse 
sizes,  and  that  the  whole  market,  the  ex- 
clusive market  for  anthracite  coal  of  a 
profitable  kind  is  for  domestic  purposes, 
or  largely  so?  A.  I understand  from  the 
statements  of  Mr.  Baer  that  40  per  cent, 
of  the  coal  is  sold  for  steam  and  manu- 
facturing purposes. 

Q.  And  that,  you  know,  is,  as  he  has 
stated,  of  the  sizes  below  the  domestic 
sizes?  A.  He  so  stated;  yes,  sir. 

Comparison  of  Wages. 

Q.  You  assumed  to  compare  the  wages 
we  are  paying  in  our  two  companies  with 
the  wages  of  bituminous  miners  in  this 
state.  I wish  you  would  state  to  the  com- 
mission what  the  average  earnings  per 


annum  are  of  the  men  employed  in  a rep- 
resentative bituminous  mine  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. A.  I have  tables  prepared  and  in 
course  of  preparation  on  that  subject; 
but  they  are  not  yet  completed.  I have 
here  the  wages  paid  the  various  classes  of 
workmen  under  the  companies  operated 
by  the  Erie— 

Q.  Operated  by  what? 

A.  By  the  Pennsylvania  and  the  Hillside 
Coal  companies.  Q.  But  you  have  not  the 
rate  of  wages  paid  by  any  bituminous 
mine  in  Pennsylvania?  A.  I have  not  the 
tables  with  me,  because  they  are  not  com- 
pleted. I konw,  however,  in  a general 
way,  the  difference  in  the  wages  paid.  Q. 
Then  what  do  you  say  they  are?  A.  They 
are  practically  50  per  cent,  greater  in  the 
bituminous  fields  for  the  same  classes 
of  workmen. 

Q.  Then  your  sixth  reason  is:  ‘‘The  an- 

nual earnings  of  the  mine  workers  are  in- 
sufficient to  maintain  the  American  stand- 
ard of  living?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  what  percentage  of  the  miners 
in  our  two  collieries  are  American  born? 
A.  I do  not  know. 

Q.  What  percentage  of  them  do  you 
believe  wish  to  maintain  what  we  call  the 
American  standard  of  living?  A.  I believe 
all  of  them  do.  Q.  What  is  the  basis  of 
that  belief  of  the  workers  at  the  Hill- 
side Coal  and  Iron  company,  and  the  em- 
ployes of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  com- 
pany? A.  I have  no  special  information 
as  to  any  difference  in  the  standard,  or 
the  desire  for  a standard  of  living  in  those 
companies,  as  compared  with  the  mine 
workers  generally. 

Q.  (Reading:)  ‘‘Seventh.  You  say  the 
increased  cost  of  living  has  made  it  im- 
possible to  maintain  a fair  standard  of 
living  upon  the  basis  of  present  wages, 
and  has  not  only  prevented  the  mine 
workers  from  securing  any  benefit  from 
increased  prosperity,  but  has  made  their 
condition  poorer  on  account  of  it.”  Yes, 
sir.  Q.  Did  you  formulate  that  reason? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  That  was  after  you  had 
secured  an  advance  of  10  per  cent,  in  1900? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Fair  Standard  of  Living-. 

Q.  And  now  what  would  you  define  to 
be  a fair  standard  of  living  for  the  work- 
men employed  about  these  two  collieries? 
A.  I should  say  that  an  income  of  six 
hundred  dollars  a year  would  permit  them 
to  live  in  a manner  comfortable  to  Ameri- 
can standards.  Q.  What  do  you  believe 
to  have  been  the  earning  capacity  of  the 
foreign  element  who  have  come  to  these 
mines  from  other  lands?  A.  Their  earn- 
ing capacity  in  their  own  countries?  Q. 
Yes.  A.  I do  not  know.  Q.  Would  you 
be  surprised  to  learn  that  it  was  less 
than  a hundred  dollars  per  annum?  A. 
Well,  it  is  possible  that  man  on  a hun- 
dred less  would  earn  a hundred  dollars 
less  in  the  country  that  he  comes  to; 
it  is  also  true — Q.  You  mean  a hun- 
dred dollars  less,  but  that  the  average 
wages  for  such  class  of  labor  as  these 
emigrants  perform  in  and  about  the  mines 
does  not  net  them  in  the  country  from 
which  they  come  over  a hundred  dollars  a 
year?  A.  No,  sir,  I do  not  know  that. 
No.  Q.  The  anthracite  mine  workers,  as 
I understand,  represent  in  all,  about  147,- 
000  people.  Have  you  ever  calculated 
what  percentage  that  is  to  the  wage  earn- 
ers of  America,  the  men  who  are  earning 
their  living  by  manual  labor?  Would  you 
be  surprised  to  learn  that  it  is  only  about 
8 per  cent.?  A.  I do  not  know  that  I 
would  be  particularly  surprised.  Q.  Then 
have  you  ascertained  what  proportibn  of 


the  people  who  have  heretofore  been 
maintaining  what  they  regarded  as  a fair 
standard  of  American  living,  which  they 
have  earned  by  their  manual  labor,  have 
been  earning  $600  in  America  per  annum? 
A.  I have  never  made  any  calculation. 

Q.  So  that  you  are  absolutely  incom- 
petent to  inform  this  commision  why  we 
should  be  required  to  pay  our  employes 
$600  a year,  except  your  sentimental  opin- 
ion that  a man  ought  to  have  $600  a year? 

Now,  as  to  the  general  -wage  earners, 
do  you  wish  the  commission  to  understand 
that  the  average  earnings  are  $600  a year, 
for  American  born  and  American  bred 
men,  enjoying  American  schools,  and 
their  families  enjoying  American  religious 
instruction  and  privileges?  A.  No;  I have 
not  said  that  the  average  is  $600  for  all 
men  who  work  for  wages.  I do  not  know 
what  it  is.  I do  know  that  the  men  who 
work  under  exactly  the  same  conditions, 
, or  substantially  the  same  conditions, 
and  in  the  same  industries,  earn  consider- 
ably more  wages  than  they  do  in  tne  an- 
thracite fields. 

Q.  Do  they  earn  $600  a year?  A.  I do 
not  think  the  average  of  the  bituminous 
miners  would  be  $600  a year,  but  I am  not 
sure  of  that. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  testifying  that  these 
breaker  boys  from  12  to  16  years  of  age 
ought  to  earn  $1  a day?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Messenger  Boys’  Wages. 

Q.  I asked  a messenger  boy  from  the 
telegraph  office,  who  came  here,  whether 
he  worked  eight  hours  a day  and  he  said 
he  worked  ten  hours.  1 asked  him  what 
he  got  and  he  said  thirteen  dollars  a 
month.  Would  you  consider  that  an  in- 
decent or  an  improper  rate  of  pay? 

A.  That  is  more  than  the  breaker  boys 
get. 

Q.  Yes,  but  they  do  not  work  every  day 
for  ten  hours. 

A.  No,  but  they  live  every  day.  (Laugh- 
ter). 

Q.  Oh!  yes.  They  live  every  day,  un- 
doubtedly, and  we  are  very  glad  they  do; 
but  the  question  is,  who  is  to  pay  them 
for  living  every  day  when  they  do  not 
work  every  day? 

A.  They  must  earn  their  living  in  the 
industry  where  they  are  employed. 

Q.  Yes,  but  must  they  earn  it  at  an  in- 
creased cost  of  the  product  with  which 
they  deal  to  the  poor  elsewhere? 

A.  If  an  industry  will  not  pay  living 
wages  to  its  employes,  then  the  industry 
itself  of  no  benefit  to  the  country. 

Q.  Therefore,  you  say  unless  the  an- 
thracite industry  can  pay'  the  wages 
which  you  designate  as  proper  in  your 
judgment,  it  ought  to  cease. 

A.  No;  I say  if  it  will  not  pay  reason- 
able living  wages,  a wage  sufficient  to 
educate  children  and  improve  citizenship, 
then  it  should  cease  to  exist. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  average 
wages  of  farm  laborers  are  in  the  United 
States?  A.  If  he  works  on  an  ordinary 
farm,  a laborer’s  pay  is.  from  $18  to  $25 
a month,  and  he  works  from  eight  to 
nine  months.  He  is  paid  his  living  in  ad- 
dition to  that.  I have  worked  on  a farm. 
Q.  Yes;  so  have  I.  (Laughter.)  But  I 
never  got  the  wages  you  indicate. 
(Laughter,)  I only  wish  that  rate  of 
wages  had  been  in  force  when  I was 
working  on  a farm.  (Laughter.)  Do 
you  know  of  any  ordinary  farm  laborer 
who,  working  ten  or  twelve  hours  a day, 
earns  $600  a year?  A.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  the  average  pay 
per  month  and  their  board  amounts  to? 
A.  As  far  as  my  information  goes,  it 


20 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


varies  from  $18  to  $25  a month.  Q. 
would  you  be  surprised  to  lind  that  it 
was  below  fifteen  dollars?  A.  It  would 
be  different  from  my  information;  con- 
trary to  my  information.  Q.  But  you 
have  no  idea  that  the  average  earnings 
of  a farm  laborer  in  the  United  States  is 
$600  a year?  A.  No,  I do  not  think  it  is. 
Q.  You  say,  then,  as  the  eighth  reason, 
that  the  wages  of  the  anthracite  mine 
workers  are  so  low  that  their  children 
are  prematurely  forced  into  the  breakers 
and  mills  instead  of  being  supported  and 
educated  upon  the  earnings  of  their  par- 
ent’s. Do  you  not  know  that  a great, 
many  of  these  parents  are  temporary 
residents  here?  A.  I understand  that 
some  of  them  are. 

Ambition  of  Foreigners. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  their  ambi- 
tion is  to  amass  a considerable  sum,  to 
them,  of  money,  with  which  to  return 
home?  And  in  pursuance  of  that  ob- 
ject they  utilize  the  earnings  of  their 
children  as  much  as  possible?  A.  I do 
not  know  that  they  ever  realize  their 
ambitions. 

Q.  You  also  asked  for  shorter  hours  of 
labor.  You  say  that  demand  is  similar  to 
the  first,  and  you  say  that  the  ten-hour 
day  is  detrimental  to  the  health,  life, 
safety  and  well-being  of  everybody  em- 
ployed about  a mine?  A.  The  work  it- 
self is  unhealthful,  and  the  work  is  very 
difficult,  and,  necessarily,  the  ten-hour 
work-day  is  hard  for  people. 

Q.  I now  ask  you  for  information  you 
obtained  from  your  associates  as  to  the 
length  of  time  the  contract  miner  works 
in  the  collieries  of  our  two  companies. 
A.  My  recollection  of  the  returns  from 
the  mines  is  not  sufficienty  clear  at  this 
time.  Q.  That  is  right;  that  is  satisfac- 
tory. Now,  would  you  be  surprised  to 
learn  (reading):  “It  is  strange,  but  it  is 
a fact,  nevertheless,  that  where  the  vein 
is  good  and  blows  well,  it  is  seldom  that 
a miner,  excepting  when  he  has  bad  luck, 
is  found  in  his  working  place  after  10 
o'clock  in  the  morning?"  (Laughter 
from  the  miner's  representatives.)  A.  I 
do  not  know  what  you  are  quoting  from, 
but  that  is  not  correct.  Q.  Sou  may  be 
sure  I am  not  quoting  from  my  own 
knowledge.  A.  I know  that;  it  is  well  to 
know,  in  connection  with  contract 
men,  that  they  start  to  work  earlier  than 
the  other  workmen.  Q.  How  early  would 
you  say  they  start  to  work?  A.  We  have 
records  of  men  going  to  work  as  early 
as  5 o'clock  in  the  morning  and  6 o'clock 
in  the  morning,  and  they  perform  two 
hours’  work  before  the  ordinary  work  of 
the  mine  starts.  They  have  prepared 
their  coal  which  is  finally  loaded,  and 
they  go  home  early  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Would  you  be  surprised,  in  contra- 
diction of  that,  to  be  told  by  an  official 
authority,  not  on  my  own  authority,  that 
they  reach  their  places  of  work  about  7 
o'clock  or  a little  later?  A.  I should  be 
surprised  very,  much,  in  view  of  the  in- 
formation I obtain  from  the  men  who 
do  the  work. 

Q.  I ask  you  this,  because  it  is  from  the 
re-port  of  the  Bureau  of  Mines  of  the 
state  of  Pennsylvania  for  1899,  an  official 
document  which  I,  with  othei'  citizens  of 
Pennsylvania,  have  been  taxed  to  pay 
for  compilink  and  publishing  that  1 am 
getting  this  information.  A.  If  you  will 
permit  me  to  say  this  much  in  connec- 
tion with  it;  that  it  frequently  occurs 
that  a mine  is  not  producing  a sufficient 
amount  of  coal  to  distribute,  to  furnish 
each  of  the  miners  with  cars.  Some- 


times there  may  be  only  two  or  three 
cars  in  a day,  and,  of  course,  that  only 
means  a part  of  a day’s  work — he  could 
load  more  than  that;  and  while  his 
laborer  is  wailing  for  the  company  to  de- 
liver the  cars  to  him,  he  returns  home. 
You  will  understand  that  in  that  event  he 
would  not  obtain  in  the  whole  day  more 
than  a half  a day's  wages.  Q.  But  his 
average  would  be  required  to  be  brought 
up  to  this  $600?  A.  Those  are  exceptions 
that  I sneak  of. 

Not  an  Exception. 

Q.  This  is  not  an  exception.  It  reads: 
“It  is  seldom  that  a miner,  excepting 
when  he  has  bad  luck,  is  found  in  his 
working  place  after  10  o'clock  in  the 
morning,”  and  the  reason  is  given.  "For 
very  likely  his  home-shot  has  been  fired 
long  before  this,  and  he  is  at  home,  or, 
perhaps,  somewhere  else  wifh  his  friends. 
In  such  mines  they  reach  their  places 
about  7 or  a little  later,  and  for  two  or 
three  hours— it  may  be  an  hour  more  oc- 
casionally— they  ‘pitch  in'  with  all  the 
vim  and  vigor  they  have  to  ‘cut’  enough 
coal  for  the  day,  and  oftentimes  in  good 
places  accomplish  this  with  two  or  three 
shots.  Then,  instead  of  taking  time  to 
prop  or  otherwise  secure  a seemingly  bad 
piece  of  roof,  which  may  be  discovered 
near  the  face,  they  go  home,  leaving  this 
work  for  the  next  day,  when,  as  they  say. 
I’ll  stick  up  a prop  under  it.  But  when 
they  arrive  on  the  next  day  they  find 
that  their  coal  has  all  been  loaded,  and 
they  must  go  at  it,  as  it  were,  hammer 
and  tongs  again,  to  cut  enough  coal  for 
that  day,  as  they  cannot  afford  to  lose  a 
car." 

Mr.  Darrow:  Will  you  tell  us  what 
that  is,  what  the  article  is  about? 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  A report  of  the  Bureau 
of  Mines  of  the  First  anthracite  district 
— that  is  our  district — for  1899,  published 
by  the  department  of  internal  affairs  of 
the  state  of  Pennsylvania.  I have  been 
reading  from  page  10  of  that  volume. 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh:  Q.  So.  if  this  offl' 
cial  report  has  any  basis,  the  contract 
miners  must  receive,  under  your  assump- 
tion, $600  a year  at  least,  even  if  they 
seldom  arrive  at  the  mine  until  after  7 
and  finish  generally  at  a little  after  10? 
A.  Well,  I do  not  want  to  assume  that 
the  report  is  accurate.  Q.  But  if  the  re- 
port is  accurate?  A.  And  even  the  report 
would  indicate  that  if  they  had  loaded  . 
all  the  cars  they  could  get  by  remaining 
there  all  day.  they  would  not  have 
loaded  any  more  coal. 

Q.  He  says  they  go  out  voluntarily  and 
spend  the  rest  of  the  day  with  their 
friends.  Now.  I am  asking  you,  is  it  a 
fair  proposition  to  ask  this  commission 
to  compel  us  by  their  order  to  pay  every- 
body at  least  $600  a year,  when  the  rule 
is  that  they  go  into  the  mine  a little 
after  7 and  generally  get  out  a little  af- 
ter 10:  and  1 ask  that  in  comparison 
with  what  other  wage-earners  are  able 
to  earn  in  the  United  States? 

A.  Yes,  but  it  is  necessary  for  you  to 
state  it  all— more  than  you  read  there. 

Q.  I wish  you  would  state  it  all. 

What  the  Eeport  Said. 

A.  The  report  says  that  they  return 
the  next  day  and  start  to  work  hard 
again,  because  they  cannot  afford  to  lose 
a car,  and  that  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  even  if  they  had  remained  at  their 
working  place  all  day  they  would  not 
have  earned  any  more  money  in  the  end 
than  by  doing  as  it  appears  they  do. 

Q?  Let  us  read  a little  further:  “Then. 


instead  of  taking  time  to  prop  or  other- 
wise secure  a seemingly  bad  piece  of  roof, 
which  may  be  discovered  near  the  face, 
they  go  home,  leaving  this  work  for  the 
next  day.”  Now  are  such  men,  in  com- 
parison with  the  other  men  who  have  to 
make  their  living  by  manly  labor,  fairly 
entitled  to  be  paid  in  every  instance  $600 
a year,  in  your  judgment?  A.  1 should 
say  that  if  men  only  work  three  hours  a 
day  that  they  would  not  be  entitled  to 
$600  a year. 

Q.  What  is  the  price  of  board  per 
month  in  our  two  properties?  A.  I un- 
derstand that  board  is  usually  $1S  per 
month.  Q.  So  if  the  average  farm  wages 
were  $15  a month — and  it  is  below  that — 
and  you  added  $18  a month  to  it,  and 
they  worked  nine  or  ten  months,  that 
would  be.  only  $33  a month,  making  $330 
for  ten  months.  Is  $330  equal  to  $600  do 
you  think?  A.  No.  sir;  I do  not  think 
the  conditions  are  at  all  comparable.  Q. 
Does  not  the  average  farm-hand  work  at 
leaast  twice  as  much— twice  as  many 
hours— as  the  average  man  at  any  of  our 
collieries?  A.  No,  I think  not;  not  the 
average  man. 

Q.  Of  course,  Mr.  Mitchell,  you  are 
aware  that,  any  increase  in  the  cost  of 
coal,  would,  if  possible,  be  unloaded  upon 
the  consumer.  You  have  yourself  recom- 
mended that  course  to  the  operators, 
have  you  not?  A.  I have  not. 

Q.  And,  of  course,  you  know  that  an- 
thracite coal  is  a necessity  to  the  very 
poor  of  a great  portion  of  the  eastern 
states  and  seaboard.  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
And  you  are  familiar  with  the  old  truth 
— very  old  and  always  true — that  the 
curse  of  the  poor  is  their  poverty,  and 
that  a great  many  of  those  unfortunate 
people  have  to  buy  their  coal  by  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  extremest  possible  economy, 
and  even  then  very  nararowlv  escape,  if 
they  escape  at  all.  from  the  bitterness  of 
cold?  A.  We  do  not  fix  the  rates  of  coal, 
where  the  poor  buy  it.  Q.  That  is  not  at 
all  an  answer  to  my  auestion;  I must 
ask  you  to  answer,  then  you  may  sup. 
plement  it.  A.  Yes,  I understand  that  it 
is  very  difficult  for  the  extremely  poor  to 
purchase  coal,  and,  in  connection  there- 
with I would  say  that  when  the  ten  per 
cent,  advance  was  paid  to  the  miners— 
upon  the  authority  of  experts  it 
amounted  to  five  cents  a ton  given  to 
the  miners — and  that  the  consumers  paid 
much  more  than  that  for  it. 

Putting  Expenses  on  Cities. 

Q.  And  you  expect  therefore  any  ad- 
vance will  not  only  be  added  upon  the 
bowed  back  of  the  poor  of  our  great 
cities  of  the  eastern  states,  but  will  be 
multiplied  by  the  operators?  A.  I expect 
that  the  operators  will  do  that  if  they 
can. 

Q.  And  you  are  willing  to  be  a party  of 
that  increased  burden? 

A.  Not  willing  to  be;  we  may  De  forced 
to  be,  but  we  are  not  willing  to  impose 
upon  the  consumer  of  coal;  we  have 
nothing  at  all  to  do  with  it. 

Q.  You  have  not? 

A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  You  have  no  public  duties,  no  social 
duties,  with  reference  to  this? 

A.  We  have  no  way  of  controlling  it. 

Q.  No;  but  have  you  not  aspirations  and 
duties  of  a social  and  religious  character 
with  you  organization? 

A.  Certainly;  I say  we  have  no  way  of 
controlling  it.  that  the  operators  charge 
the  consumers  as  much  as  they  choose  for 
the  coal.  AVe  are  not  consulted  in  the 
matter  at  all. 


Q.  No;  but  wheh  you  demand  an  ad- 
vance in  your  wages  and  secure  it,  you 
know,  as  well  as  you  know  your  name, 
that  an  additional  buiden  will  be  put  upon 
the  poor  people  who  have  to  buy  it. 

A.  The  operators  must  be  entirely  re- 
sponsible for  that. 

Q.  But  you  are  the  start,  you  start  the 
stone  rolling  which  is  to  roll  upon  their 
back  and  break  it,  in  some  cases.  I have 
here  now  a demand  from  Philadelphia, 
for  the  poor  of  that  city.  Fortunately  the 
weather  has  moderated  recently.  They 
were  panic-striclcen  last  Saturday  by  the 
news  that  a cold  wave  was  coming,  for 
they  could  not  get  their  coal.  Now  you 
make  it  harder  for  them  to  get  it  if  you 
add  to  the  cost  of  producing,  do  you  not? 
It  may  be  right  to  do  so,  I do  not  say 
it  is  not  right;  I only  want  you  to  face 
> the  consequence  of  your  action. 

A.  I should  say  that  if  an  advance  of 
20  per  cent,  was  paid  to  the  miners  and  if 
the  advance  amounted  to  20  cents  a ton  on 
coal,  which  is  100  per  cent,  more  than  the 
experts  who  have  made  calculations  here- 
tofore have  said,  it  would  increase  the 
cost  to  the  consumer  about  20  cents  a 
month,  the  poor  man  would  be  out  of  his 
earnings  20  cents  more  a month.  He 
would  not  be  out  more  than  that  because 
he  does  not  use  more  than  a ton  a month. 

I do  not  think  that  20  cents  a ton  ought 
to  be  added  to  the  price  to  the  consumer; 

I think  the  operators  might  pay  that  out 
of  their  profits. 

Q.  But  supposing  they  have  no  profits? 

Mitchell’s  Quick  Wit. 

A.  Then  they  might  pay  it  out  of  their 
freight  rates. 

Q.  Suppose  their  freight  rates  do  not 
pay  any  profit,  then  where  are  they  to 
pay  it  from?  A.  I presume  they  would 
charge  it  up  to  the  consumer  whether  it 
pays  or  not. 

Q.  I was  going  to  ask  if  they  had  any 
other  place  to  take  it.  If  you  demand  an 
increase  and  they  have  no  profits  where . 
are  they  going  to  place  it  except  upon  the 
bowed  backs  of  the  poor? 

A.  They  might  put  it  on  the  bowed 
backs  of  the  rich. 

Q.  The  rich  do  not  mind  it.  They  are 
ready  to  agree  with  you  to  make  a trust 
for  them  and  a trust  for  you;  but  I am 
not,  I am  asking  about  the  other  classes. 

A.  I can  only  say  that  they  have  done 
that  already  without  paying  the  miners 
one  cent  in  wages.  They  have  increased 
the  price  of  coal  50  cents  a ton  without 
solicitude  for  the  public. 

Q.  For  how  long? 

A.  It  is  going  into  effect  now. 

Q.  For  how  long? 

A.  I understand  it  is  announced  to  be 
for  a few  months. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  it  will  terminate 
the  first  of  January? 

A.  Probably  so,  I do  not  know. 

Q.  That  is  a month  and  a half.  Do  you 
know  the  reason  given  for  that  advance? 

A.  I understand  to  compensate  the 
companies  for  the  additional  cost  of  min- 
ing coal  incident  to  a long  idleness. 

Q.  And  the  destruction  of  property 
which  has  been  incident  to  that  cessation? 

A.  I understand  so. 

Q.  In  one  of  your  other  reasons  you 
state  that  shorter  hours  increase  the  in- 
tensity and  efficiency  of  labor?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  Q.  Have  you  had  experience  to  jus- 
tify that?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  Have  you  no- 
ticed the  publication  in  today's  newspa- 
pers in  New  York  of  an  additional  esti- 
mate of  the  cost  of  some  work  there  by 
reason  of  the  reduction  of  the  hours  of 


mIne  s 'Trike  commission 

labor  from  ten  to  eight,  showing  that  the 
increased  cost  is  25  per  cent?  A.  I have 
not  seen  that.  Q.  Would  you  be  surprised 
to  learn  that  employers  of  labor  in  very 
many  cases  have  estimated  their  loss  at 
as  much  as  30  per  cent,  by  reason  of  the 
reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor  from  ten 
to  eight?  A.  I do  not  know  what  the  em- 
ployers have  estimated  it  at;  I know  from 
experience  in  coal  mining  what  effect  it 
has  had. 

Additional  Cost  of  Work. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  chief  of  the 
bureau  of  construction  in  the  navy  depart- 
ment officially  reports  as  to  the  addi- 
tional cost  of  work  in  government  navy 
yard's  where  the  eight  hours  system  pre- 
vails over  private  yards  where  the  ten- 
hours  system  prevails?  A.  No,  I do  not 

know Q.  Would  you  not  be  surprised 

to  learn  that  it  is  33  per  cent.?  A.  1 would 
not  be  surprised  to  learn  a considerable 
difference  in  any  line  of  employment  in 
the  amount  paid  by  the  government  and 
some  private  concern.  Q.  Nor  I.  All  the 
same  you  allude  to  the  action  of  the  gov- 
ernment in  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  of 
its  employes  as  an  argument  in  favor  of 
the  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor  in  coal 
mining?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  You  see  that  ar- 
gument is  not  valuable?  A.  I do  not  see 
where  there  is  any  comparison  between 
my  statement  and  the  fact  of  the  in- 
creased cost  of  government  woi  k. 

Q.  As  the  world  has  gone  on  through 
these  long  years  of  stress  and  strife,  has 
any  industrial  community  in  its  history 
been  efficient  and  successful  in  competing 
for  the  markets  of  the  world  upon  a day 
of  eight  hours  labor?  A.  I think  the  most 
prosperous  and  most  highly  civilized  na- 
tions on  earth  have  the  shortest  hours  of 
labor. 

Q.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  ques- 
tion. I asked  in  the  long  course  of  hu- 
man history  whether  the  laboring  classes 
have  ever  succeeded  in  competing  for  the 
commerce  and  business  of  the  world  on 
an  eight  hour  day?  I do  not  mean  to  say 
they'  may  not  do  so  in  the  future,  I am 
asking  only  whether  there  is  such  a rec- 
ord or  whether  this  is  a new  step  we  are 
asked  to  take?  A.  I do  not  know  that  the 
eight-hour  day'  has  been  established  for  a 
sufficient  number  of  years  to  enable  me 
to  say  what  its  effect  will  be.  I do  know 
that  the  most  prosperous  industries  in 
America  are  those  that  are  operated 
under  the  eight-hour  day'. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  here  read  from  the 
New  York  Evening  Post  the  following 
excerpts  from  an  article  on  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Operative  Plasters’  as- 
sociation, of  New  York; 

The  Foreman’s  Duty. 

"The  duty  of  the  foreman  is  primarily 
‘to  see  that  all  men  working  under  him 
are  in  good  standing  in  this  society:’  the 
foreman,  should  he  employ  a non-member 
becomes  immediately  responsible  for  his 
initiation  fee.’  Should  he  fail  to  report  a 
non-member  put  upon  a job,  the  same 
penalty  applies.  But  the  most  grievous  sin 
which  a foreman  can  commit  is  'in- 
sisting on  rushing  the  men,’  or  similarly 
‘bringing  about  a condition  of  affairs 
that  would  be  detrimental  to  the  mem- 
bers of  this  society.’  This,  if  proved 
against  him,  is  punishable  by  a fine,  sus- 
pension, or  at  the  second  offense  by  de- 
gradation to  the  ranks.  ‘It  shall  not  be 
allowable  for  members  to  work  single- 
handed  at  any'  part  of  the  trade  of  plas- 
tering where  two  men  can  work  to  ad- 


21 


vantage.  Foremen  will  be  held  strictly 
responsible  for  the  violation  of  this  rule. 
* * * After  working  eight  hours,  a 
member  shall  receive  his  wages  if  he 
demands  it,  and  if  the  member's  demands 
are  not  complied  with,  he  shall  receive 
the  regular  rate  of  wages  for  all  work- 
ing time  he  is  waiting.’  ” 

Q.  You  are  not  familiar  with  this  or- 
ganization at  all,  are  you? 

A.  I do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  But  do  you  think  that  eight  hours 
in  that  organization  adds  to  the  efficiency 
of  the  labor  and  enjoy'ment  of  the  em- 
ployer? 

A.  I do  not  know  anything  about  that 
organization.  Q.  I credit  you,  and  sin- 
cerely credit  you,  Mr.  Mitchell,  with  the 
desire  you  express,  to  establish  perman- 
ent peace  and  friendly  relations  between 
employers  and  their  employes.  I feel  you 
are  working  to  that  end,  and  I am  also, 
although  we  may  be  pursuing  different 
paths. 

Now,  a subsequent  demand  is  as  to  our 
system  of  weighing  coal.  Do  you  know 
how  we  do  measure  the  wages  of  the 
miners  at  our  collieries?  A.  I under- 
stand you  weigh  the  coal.  Q.  Is  there 
any  further  demand  upon  us  in  respect 
to  that?  A.  Yes,  we  ask  that  you  pay 
for  a legal  ton  of  coal.  Q.  Don’t  we  do 
that?  A.  No,  sir.  Q.  What  do  we  pay  for 
it?  A.  Your  ton  is,  I understand,  from 
2740  pounds  to  3190  pounds— I will  not  be 
sure  of  the  exact  figures— it  is  one  o 
those  special  tons. 

A Leg-al  Ton  of  Coal. 

Q.  Det  us  clear  up  this  obscurity  in  it. 
which  appeared  to  me  in  your  language 
this  morning,  or  perhaps  resulted  from 
my  inability  to  understand  what  you 
said.  What  do  you  mean  by  a legal  ton 
— a legal  ton  of  what?  A.  Coal.  Q.  Do 
we  not  pay  every  man  for  every  2240 
pounds  of  coal  we  can  sell— merchantable 
coal?  A.  You  possibly  pay  for  some  2240 
pounds,  but  there  are  some  you  do  nol 
pay  for.  Q.  Some  of  the  merchantable 
coal?  A.  Yes,  sir;  some  of  marketable 
coal.  Q.  Marketable  and  merchantable, 
you  know,  are  two  different  things.  IP 
we  are  selling  coal  below  what  it  costs  to 
produce  it,  we  are  substantially  giving 
away  our  capital,  and  if  we  average 
such  wages  as  we  think  you  will  dis- 
cover when  you  have  the  entire  tabula- 
tion of  our  collieries  before  you,  ought 
wre  also  to  pay  for  producing  coal  which 
we  sell  at  a loss?  A.  You  ought  to  pay 
the  miner  for  very  pound  of  coal  th  i . 
he  mines  that  is  marketable. 

Q.  Your  next  demand  is  that  we  should 
make  an  agreement  with  you,  represent- 
ing the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America, 
and  I wish  to  ask  you  if  you  have  pre- 
pared a proposed  form  of  agreement, 
which  you  ask  this  commission  to  com- 
pel us  to  execute.  A.  No,  I have  simly 
suggested  in  my  opening  address  to  the 
commission  a form  that  I thought  would 
be  practicable  and  acceptable  to  all  the 
interests  in  this  field.  Q.  That  was  a 
form  for  settlement  of  disputes.  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  But  that  did  not  go  into  any  detail. 
You  say:  “An  agreement  between  the 

United  Mine  Workers  of  America  and 
the  anthracite  coal  companies,  of  the 
wages  which  shall  be  paid  and  the  con- 
ditions of  employment  which  shall  ob- 
tain, together  with  satisfactory  methods 
for  the  adjustment  of  grievances."  Now 
your  proposals  was  wholly  limited  to  the 
adjustment  of  grievances?  A.  No,  sir;  I 
had  suggested  that  the  wrages  which  the 


22 


commission  should  award  would  become 
a part  of  the  agreement,  and  then  that 
provision  should  be  made  for  the  ad- 
justment of  any  grievances  during  the 
life  of  the  agreement,  on  general  mat- 
ters. 

Q.  Would  you  kindly  have  sketched  out 
a form  of  agreement,  for  instance,  that 
you  would  wish  the  gentlemen  that  I 
represent  to  sign  with  you?  A.  I would 
say  I have  the  sketch  I make  in  my 
opening  statement,  which  I think  will 
cover  the  matter  very  fully. 

A Long  Question. 

Q.  You  think  it  does.  X read  it,  and 
it  did  not  seem  to  me  to  be  such  a pro- 
position as  we  could  intelligently  dis- 
cuss. I will  read  it  again,  and  if  it  is,  I 
will  be  glad  to  say  so.  Now,  your  rea- 
sons in  support  of  that  demand  that  we 
should  make  an  agreement  with  you  are, 
first,  that  they  should  not  be  compelled 
to  make  or  sign  individual  agreements, 
but  should  have  the  right  to  form  such 
organizations  and  choose  such  agents 
and  officers  as  they  desire,  to  act  collec- 
tively instead  of  individually  whenever 
they  deem  that  their  best  interests  are 
subserved  thereby.  As  to  that,  I am  in 
cordial  agreement  with  you.  As  I stated 
in  the  beginning,  I have  not  the  slightest 
desire  to  interfere  with  the  right  of  any 
employes  to  form  an  association  and  to 
be  represented  by  such  of  their  number 
and  by  such  outside  assistance  as  they 
se  proper  to  secure— yourself,  or  any- 

body else — to  assist  them  in  the  adjust- 
ment of  any  grievances  of  which  they 
complain.  Your  second  reason  is  that 
agreements  between  employers  and  em- 
ployes through  workingmen's  organiza- 
tions, and  the  ordinary  method  of  regu- 
lating production  and  wages  in  the  bi- 
tuminous coal  fields  and  in  other  large 
industries  are  beneficial,  successful,  and 
in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  times; 
and  your  third  is:  Unions  of  working- 
men tend  to  the  better  discioline  of  the 
men  and  to  the  improvement  of  their 
physical,  moral  and  mental  condition, 
and  to  the  preservation  of  friendly  rela- 
tions between  employer  and  employe; 
and  your  fourth  is:  Experience  shows 
that  the  trade  agreement  is  the  only  ef- 
fective method  by  which  it  is  possible 
to  regulate  questions  arising  between 
employer  and  employed  in  large  indus- 
tries, and  that  a trade  agreement  is  the 
only  possible  way  to  establish  the  rela- 
tions between  employers  and  the  wage- 
workers in  the  anthracite  field  on  a just 
and  permanent  basis,  and  as  far  as  pos- 
sible to  do  away  with  any  causes  for  the 
recurrence  of  such  difficulties  as  those 
the  present  anthracite  coal  commission 
have  been  called  in  to  settle.  Now,  there 
is  nothing  in  that,  Mr.  iMtchell,  distinct- 
ly declaring  that  we  must  be  parties  to  a 
partnership  with  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America,  and  I wish  to  ask  you' 
whether  that  is  one  of  the  demands  you 
make  upon  us?  A.  Yes. 

The  Chairman:  What  is  one  of  the  de- 
mands ? 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  That  we  should  enter 
into  a definite  agreement  with  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  and 
not  enter  into  such  trade  agreements  as 
are  sketched  in  these  reasons. 

A.  There  are  four  demands,  four  issues 
in  the  strike.  One  of  them  is  that  an 
agreement  be  made,  that  the  wages  and 
conditions  of  employment  be  incorporated 
in  an  agreement  between  the  organization 
and  the  operators. 

Q.  You  stated  in  your  examination  In 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 

chief  that  your  agreements  with  the  bitu- 
minous coal  operators  had  worked  suc- 
cessfully and  harmoniously.  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  the  operation  of  them  fur- 
nished the  best  possible  reasons  why  tne 
owners  of  the  two  companies  we  represent 
should  be  asked  to  enter  into  a like  agree- 
ment? A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  further  stated  that  the  only  dif- 
ficulties that  had  arisen  under  those 
agreements  was  as  to  the  legal  construc- 
tion of  some  of  their  phrases,  and  that 
they  had  been  settled  amicably  between 
the  parties?  A.  There  has  been  very  little 
difference — Q.  And  what  there  was  was 
confined  to  the  construction  of  the  lan- 
guage of  the  agreement?  A.  No,  1 
say  that  at  times  there  has  been 
differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  these  agreements.  There  have 
been  differences  between  the  miners  and 
the  operators  locally  on  rare  occasions 
on  account  of  other  matters,  but  they 
have  always  been  adjusted  amicably.  Q. 
And  those  were  rare  occasions,  as  you 
say?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  were  slight 
matters?  A.  Very  few  serious  differences. 

Q.  Not  going  at  all  to  the  effective 
working  of  the  mines,  or  the  discipline  of 
them?  A.  I think  that  the  discipline  in 
the  mines  have  been  very  satisfactory  in 
the  soft  coal  fields. 

Q.  In  what  states  have  these  agreements 
been  most  successfully  carried  out,  in 
your  judgment?  A.  Well,  1 think  that 
they  have  been  more  successful,  because 
they  have  been  more  complete,  in  the 
states  of  Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana  and  Ohio. 

I think  there  they  have  been  more  com- 
plete. 

Q.  Would  you  be  surprised  to  learn  that 
the  bituminous  operators  or  a consider- 
able number  of  them  reported  that  as  a 
result  of  those  agreements,  so  far  from 
any  improvement  being  noticeable  in  con- 
sequence of  them  (reading):  “On  the 

contrary,  in  many  mines  there  has  been 
a considerable  increase  in  the  proportion 
of  the  fine  coal  (waste).  We  have  reports 
from  nearly  all  the  larger  operators  in 
the  mine  scale  districts  of  the  state  and 
the  burden  of  their  testimony  is  that  there 
is  no  improvement  in  the  methods  of  min- 
ing, and  consequently  no  decrease  in  the 
proportion  of  fine  coal  and  no  improve- 
ment whatever  in  the  quality  of  the  lump 
coal.  Things  have  grown  worse  instead  of 
better.”  Would  you  be  surprised  at  such 
a statement  as  that  from  one  of  the  best 
states,  one  of  the  states  you  have  named 
as  the  best?  Would  you  be  surprised  to 
learn  that  a considerable  body  of  the 
bituminous  coal  operators  in  the  state  of 
Illinois  made  that  statement? 

A.  No,  I would  not  be  surprised  that 
they  made  the  statement,  for  I can  ex- 
plain the  conditions  under  which  they 
made  it. 

Q.  I wish  you  would. 

A.  I understand  that  they  were  about  to 
enter  a convention  with  the  miners  in 
which  they  were  going  to  ask  for  changes 
in  their  prices,  and  were  preparing  an  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  a change  in  conditions 
of  work.  However,  the  very  statement 
they  make  is  not  sustained  by  the  offi- 
cial reports  of  the  mine  inspection  bu- 
reau of  Illinois.  In  fact,  the  contrary  is 
true,  showing  that  there  has  been  a very 
decided  improvement. 

Q.  But  we  have  discarded  the  reports  of 
the  mine  inspection  bureau.  Your  friends 
in  the  rear  of  the  room  laughed  and 
jeered  at  it.  A.  They  were  men  that 
worked  more  than  three  hours,  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh. 

Q.  Mine  inspection  bureau  reports  in 


Illinois  are  very  good;  mine  inspection  re- 
ports in  Pennsylvania  are  worthless. 
Now  would  you  be  surprised  to  learn  that 
these  operators  declare:  "In  the  shoot- 
ing there  is  still  the  same  tendency  to 
over-shoot  the  coal  that  prevailed  under 
our  previous  agreements.  You  need  not 
be  reminded  that  the  operators  complained 
of  this  excessive  use  of  powder  at  our 
several  state  conventions,  and  in  all  of 
our  joint  meetings  that  have  taken  place 
since  the  interstate  movement  was  inaug- 
urated. In  many  instances  the  reports 
to  this  office  show  clearly  that  large  con- 
sumers of  coal  have  complained  as  never 
before  of  the  inferior  quality  of  coal  pro- 
duced in  the  state  of  Illinois.” 

Q.  Would  you  be  surprised  to  learn  that 
their  commissioner  said,  “I  have  myself 
visited  every  scale  district  in  the  state, 
and  while  there  is  less  friction  than  for- 
merly prevailed  between  the  coal  opera- 
tors and  coal  miners,  and  while  I am  sat- 
isfied that  the  relations  between  the  em- 
ployer and  employe  are  more  cordial  than 
ever  before,  still  1 find  that  everywhere 
the  complaint  is  made  that  the  quality  of 
coal  produced  under  the  mine  run  sys- 
tem has  steadily  deteriorated.  At  the  joint 
convention  of  operators  and  mine  workers 
the  coal  operators  of  the  state  were 
assured  that  the  mine  run  system  would 
make  better  miners,  which  would  result 
in  a better  quality  of  coal  being  produced. 
I sincerely  regret  to  say  that  this  prom- 
ise has  not  been  fulfilled  as  the  results 
conclusively  prove;  for  no  one  can  dis- 
pute the  fact,  whether  on  the  side  of  the 
operators  or  miners,  that  the  quality  of 
coal  produced  at  the  time  the  mine-run 
system  was  adopted  became  bad  and  has 
gradually  but  surely  grown  worse  from 
year  to  year.  It  is  due  to  the  officials  of 
the  state  organization" — and  I want  to 
give  you  the  good  side  as  well  as  the  bad 
— “and  I believe  also  due  tne  officers  of 
the  local  unions  generally  to  say  that  an 
honest  effort  has  been  made  to  correct  the 
abuses  of  which  the  operators  complain” 
—and  I have  not  the  slightest  desire  in 
the  form  of  question  I put  to  question 
you  perfect  good  faith  and  the  good 
faith  of  the  gentlemen  associated  with 
you — “that  an  honest  effort  has  been 
made  to  correct  the  abuses  of  which  the 
operators  complain,  but  as  yet  they  have 
been  powerless  to  produce  the  desired 
change,  and  their  efforts,  besides  being 
vain,  have  tended  to  make  them  unpop- 
ular with  a few  men  at  every  mining 
camp  whose  chief  mission  in  life,  it  seems, 
is  to  give  trouble.  This  state  of  affairs 
seems  to  me  most  deplorable,  and  dis- 
couraging in  the  extreme,  for  the  reason 
that  mine  labor  is  nowhere  else  so  well 
organized  as  in  the  state  of  Illinois." 
That  is  true,  isn't  it?  A.  It  is  as  well 
organized  there  as  elsewhere.  Q.  And  as 
well  paid?  A.  Their  wages  compare  fa- 
vorably with  other  states. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Mitchell,  frankly,  consid- 
ering that  as  the  experience  of  the  bitum- 
inous operators  in  the  favorable  state  ot' 
Illinois,  which  you  select  as  one  of  the 
favorable  states,  do  you  still  ask  this 
commission  to  compel  us  to  enter  into  an 
agreement  with  your  organization?  A.  I 
think  that  possibly  in  order  for  the  com- 
mission to  know  the  conditions  in  Illi- 
nois it  would  be  advisable  to  invite  the 
operators  who  make  that  statement  to 
come  here. 

Q.  "Should  you  ask  me.  as  I have  been 
frequently  asked,  why  do  we  not  dis- 
charge such  offenders" — this  is  the  opera- 
tors asking  the  question  of  you,  Mr.  Mit- 
chell, and  as  the  representative  of  the 


MINE  strike  commission 


23 


Others  of  these  two  inconsiderable  prop- 
erties, I ask  it — “why  do  we  not  dis- 
charge such  offenders,  I will  reply  that 
it  is  well  nigh  impossible  to  dischai-ge  a 
miner  in  Illinois  mines  without  laying 
the  mine  idle  in  which  the  offender  has 
been  employed.  To  discharge  a member 
of  your  union  for  any  cause  gives  of- 
fense, even  when  his  offense  is  admitted, 
which  the  miners  very  generally  resent. 
This  being  the  case,  your  organization 
must  find  the  remedy  for  our  trouble,  the 


owners  of  the  mines  themselves  being 
powerless  to  act."  Is  that  true,  or  not? 

A.  I think  by  referring  to  the  Illinois 
agreement  you  will  find  that  whatever 
objections  they  had  were  overcome  by  in- 
serting in  the  agreement  the  right  to 
hire  and  dismiss  the  men.  Q.  Under  the 
limitations  which  Mr.  Willeox  explained 
this  morning.  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  Well  that 
is  one  of  the  things  1 wish  you  would 
offer  to  put  in  this  agreement,  and  see 
what  privileges  you  propose  to  afford  us. 


We  will  be  very  thankful  for  small 
favors.  I have  been  reading— Mr.  Dar- 
row  requested  me  to  state— from  a letter 
transmitted  by  you  under  date  of  August 
3,  1901,  to  gentlemen  generally  designated 
as  “brothers,”  and  I hope  I come  within 
that  designation.  It  is  addressed  to  you 
and  transmitted  by  you  to  the  brothers 
of  the  organization.  Would  you  be  sur- 
prised to  find  that  the  same  conditions 
exist  today  in  the  bituminous  mines  of 
Illinois  as  that  letter  describes? 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Nov.  17. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  18.] 


Practically  all  of  yesterday’s  session 
of  the  mine  strike  commission,  like  the 
sessions  of  the  two  previous  days  of 
the  hearings,  was  devoted  to  a discus- 
sion of  the  proposition  of  the  expedi- 
ency and  desirability  of  the  operators 
entering  into  contract  relations  with 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 

President  John  Mitchell,  of  the  miners’ 
union,  continued  on  the  stand  all  day, 
under  cross-examination  by  Hon. 
■Wayne  MacVeagh,  of  counsel  for  tne 
Erie  company’s  coal  properties.  Prop- 
erly speaking,  it  was  not  an  examina- 
tion of  a witness  by  an  attorney,  but 
rather  a discussion  between  the  two  of 
subjects  the  latter  chose  to  introduce. 
Mr.  MacVeagh  would  present  a state- 
ment of  a condition  and  ask  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell for  an  expression  of  opinion  on  it, 
or  something  to  that  effect.  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell’s reply  would  be  an  effort  to  belittle 
the  effect  that  the  recital  of  the  lawyer 
might  have  on  the  commissioners. 

It  was  a pretty  contest,  interesting  at 
all  times,  and  occcasionally  really  ex- 
citing. So  well  did  the  young  leader  of 
the  miners  fence  with  the  shrewd,  ex- 
perienced ex-attorney  general  that  the 
latter  was  moved  to  remark  at  one  of 
the  retorts  of  the  witness:  “Mr.  Mitch- 

ell, you  are  the  best  witness — for  your- 
self— I have  ever  faced  in  my  life.” 

Skillful  parrying  on  the  part  of  the 
witness  saved  him  frequently  from  the 
alternative  of  refusing  to  answer  or 
making  an  admission  detrimental  to  his 
side  of  the  case. 

One  Incident. 

Once  Mr.  MacVeagh  related  an  inci- 
dent from  Forest  City,  -where  a hotel- 
keeper  refused  to  board  non-union  men, 
and  wound  up  by  asking  the  witness  if 
he  thought  that  was  right.  The  wit- 
ness could  not  very  well  say  it  was 
wrong,  as  that  would  be  censuring  a 
strike  sympathizer,  and,  of  course, 
could  not  say  it  was  commendable,  as 
it  would  be  giving  approval  to  a palp- 
ably illegal  boycott.  Quickly,  with 
scarcely  a momentary  pause  for 
thought,  Mr.  Mitchell  said:  “Why  ask 

me  about  that?  Our  union  is  not  run- 
ning hotels.”  The  answer,  while  not 
designed  to  make  very  much  of  an  im- 
pression on  the  commissioners,  served 
most  admirably  in  saving  the  witness 
from  unwillingly  committing  himself. 

This  was  only  one  instance.  The  ex- 

amination was  replete  with  them.  In 


dealing  with  the  application  of  the  op- 
probious  epithet  “scab”  to  non-union 
workmen,  Mr.  MacVeagh  remarked: 
“Having  designated  one  as  a ‘scab’, 
what  else  would  you  do?”  Mr.  Mitchell 
thought  a while,  and  said  with  a smile: 
“That’s  all.”  The  audience,  which  knew 
that  that  would  be  all  that  was  neces- 
sary in  the  premises,  laughed  long  and 
heartily  at  the  sally. 

How  necessary  it  was  for  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell to  summon  to  his  aid  all  the  skill  he 
may  possess  as  a disputant  can  be 
gathered  from  a contemplation  of  the 
three  subjects  which  formed  the  burden 
of  the  day’s  discussion  between  him- 
self and  Mr.  MacVeagh.  One  was  the 
right  of  a man  to  work  where,  when 
and  as  long  as  he  chooses;  the  second 
was  boycotting,  and  the  third  the  vio- 
lence which  prevailed  during  the  strike. 

After  reciting  some  of  the  many  ills  ■ 
to  which  the  “non-unionist”  was  heir 
to,  during  the  strike,  Mr.  MacVeagh 
asked  Mr.  Mitchell  if  he  approved  of 
that  sort  of  thing.  Mr.  Mitchell  re- 
plied that  he  would  content  himself 
with  refusing  to  have  anything  to  do 
with  him. 

Said  Boycotting  Was  Wrong. 

On  the  question  of  boycott  the  wit- 
ness said  it  was  wrong  to  deprive  peo- 
ple of  the  necessities  of  life,  by  induc- 
ing merchants  not  to  deal  with  them, 
but  defended  the  right  of  union  men  to 
deal  or  refuse  to  deal  with  a friendly 
or  an  unfriendly  merchant,  as  the  case 
might  be,  and  to  induce  others  to  do 
the  same. 

For  the  last  hour  of  the  afternoon, 
Mr.  MacVeagh  read  from  a 73-page 
pamphlet  containing  briefly  mentioned 
accounts  of  the  violence  that  occurred 
throughout  the  region  during  the  strike. 
Occasionally  he  would  pause  to  ask 
the  witness  what  steps  the  union  took 
to  prevent  this  sort  of  thing  or  dis- 
cipline the  members  of  the  union  who 
were  guilty  of  the  acts  enumerated. 

Mr.  Mitchell  admitted  that  if  such 
things  were  true  it  was  deplorable,  but 
he  refused  to  admit  that  the  conditions 
described  by  Mr.  MacVeagh  were  true. 

After  considerable  questioning,  Mr. 
MacVeagh  succeeded  in  getting  Mr. 
Mitchell  to  admit  that  intimidation  as 
preached  by  those  who  murdered,  dyn- 
amited, boycotted,  beat  and  threatened 
workmen  had  the  effect  of  deterring 
men  from  going  to  work,  but  the  wit- 


ness insisted  on  adding  that  lawless- 
ness was  not  necessary  to  the  success 
of  the  miners;  that  the  union  discount- 
enanced it,  and  that  it  was  his  oft- 
declared  belief  that  lawlessness  on  the 
part  of  the  strikers  not  only  did  not 
help,  but  hurt  their  cause. 

To  prove  his  declaration  that  men 
were  not  deterred  from  returning  to 
work  by  fear  of  bodily  harm,  Mr.  Mit- 
chell told  with  much,  stress  how,  when 
the  whole  National  Guard  was  called 
out,  he  had  the  strikers,  union  and 
non-union  express  themselves  by  vote 
as  to  whether  or  not  they  were  deterred 
from  going  to  work  by  fear  of  bodily 
harm  and  how  every  man  of  the  more 
than  100,000  voted  that  it  was  not 
this  that  kept  them  from  work,  but 
their  determination  to  stand  for  their 
rights. 

Still  Looking  for  Them. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  laconically  told  of  a 
recent  election  in  Mexico,  where  Diaz 
received  all  but  two  votes  and  then  ad- 
ded: “They  are  still  looking  for  the 

two  men  who  voted  against  Diaz.” 

Mr.  MacVeagh  was  particularly  ag- 
gressive in  showing  that  the  strike 
could  never  have  been  terminated  ex- 
cept in  a complete  victory  for  the  op- 
erators, if  it  had  not  been  for  the  in- 
timidation practiced  by  the  strikers, 
and  that  President  Mitchell  was  respon- 
sible for  it.  Once  he  declared  unequiv- 
ocally, “Mr.  Mitchell,  you  could  have 
prevented  this  intimidation  and  you 
didn’t.”  Between  the  lines  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh would  have  the  commissioners 
read  that  the  union  and  its  officers,  not 
only  do  not  discourage,  but  actually  en- 
courage the  violence  which  Mr.  Mitchell 
admitted  deterred  “some  men”  from 
returning  to  work. 

Mr.  Mitchell  did  riot  make  reply  to 
the  accusation  that  he  “could  hav°  pre- 
vented the  intimidation  and  didn’t.” 
He  declared,  however,  that  the  opera- 
tors could  not  have  won  if  not  so  much 
as  a single  lawless  act  had  occurred 
during  the  strike.  The  miners,  he  said 
would  have  stayed  out  all  winter  and 
all  summer. 

Mr.  Mi'tchell  was  on  the  stand  at  ad- 
journing time  and  will  be  cross-exam- 
ined further  tolay  by  Mr.  MacV°a°Ti. 

The  court  room  was  crowded  agam 
at  both  sessiors,  a number  of  ladies 
being  among  the  spectators.  Mrs.  T.  H. 
Watkins,  Mrs.  Downs,  of  Philadelphia, 


24 


proceedings  of  the  anthracite 


and  Mrs.  Law,  of  Pittsburgh,  accom- 
panied by  Rev.  J.  H.  Odell  ,and  Law 
Watkins  occupied  seats  in  the  rear 
of  the  witness  box.  Many  prominent 
citizens  were  occupying  the  seats  in- 
side the  bar  exclusive. 

Door  Smashed. 

A lot  of  excitement  interrupted  the 
session  just  after  the  beginning  of  the 
afternoon  proceedings.  The  tipstaves 
had  allowed  enough  to  come  in  to  fill 
up  the  spectators  seats  and  then 
blocked  the  swinging  door.  The  crowd 
massed  on  the  outside  could  see 
through  the  long  glass  panels  that 
there  was  considerable  standing  room 
left  and  clamored  for  admission.  The 
tipstaves  paid  no  heed  to  them  and  be- 
coming exasperated  the  crowd  pushed 
against  the  door  till  they  forced  them 
open  and  then  piled  in  pell  mell  until  no 
more  could  fit  in  the  room. 

The  commissioners  treated  the  matter 
good  naturedly,  and  Judge  Gray  sug- 
gested to  the  tipstaves  to  keep  no  one 
out  as  long  as  there  was  even  standing 
room  left.  “When  any  leaves,  now,  let 
another  one  in,”  he  advised. 

A minute  later  the  remnant  of  the 
crowd  on  the  outside  began  pushing 
again  and  a man  standing  against  the 
glass  panel  was  pushed  completely 
through  it,  but  fortunately  without  be- 
ing injured.  The  crash  of  the  falling 
plate  glass  startled  everybody  and 
caused  another  short  interruption,  but 
the  commissioners  once  more  laughed 
the  matter  off.  They  evidently  could 
appreciate  the  extreme  anxiety  that 
caused  the  adoption  of  such  extreme 
measures  to  gain  admittance. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  began  his  cross-exam- 
ination of  Mr.  Mitchell  by  reading  fur- 
ther extracts  from  the  constitution  of 
the  Operative  Plasterers’  Association  of 
New  York,  and  about  some  of  the  as- 
sociation’s high  handed  methods  of  at- 
tempting to  regulate  conditions  of  em- 
ployment. Pointing  out  what  he  con- 
sidered the  iniquities  of  this  branch  of 
unionism,  Mr.  MacVeagh  asked  Mr. 
Mitchell  if  he  could  consistently  ask 
the  commission  to  force  the  operators 
to  deal  with  unionism.  Mr.  Mitchell 
said  he  knew  nothing  of  this  associa- 
tion, its  rules  or  the  causes  which  led 
to  the  adoption,  and  therefore  would 
not  care  to  pass  upon  them,  but  on 
the  surface,  he  would  say  the  associa- 
tion in  question  was  not  acting  in  a 
fair  manner. 

Must  TJse  Ajithracite. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  spent  some  time  in 
showing  that  500,000  poor,  in  the  cities 
of  the  Atlantic  coast,  who  must  use  an- 
thracite if  there  was  any  fuel,  are,  to- 
day without  means  of  buying  it,  and 
pointing  out  that  these  poor  number 
three  times  the  members  of  the  anthra- 
cite miners’  ranks,  asked  Mr.  Mitchell 
if  he  would  favor  increasing  the  dif- 
ficulty to  those  people  of  securing  coal 
by  adding  to  its  cost.  Mr.  Mitchell  re- 
plied that  the  cost  of  coal  was  entirely 
regulated  by  the  operators,  and  the 


union,  not  being  consulted  in  the  mat- 
ter, was  in  no  wise  responsible. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  repeated  his  question 
in  this  form:  “Are  you  in  favor  of  in- 

sisting in  your  demands  despite  the  fact 
that  500,000  poor  people  will  have  to 
deprive  themselves  of  bread  to  help 
accord  you  your  demands?”  Mr.  Mit- 
chell replied  that  the  miner  has  a 
right  to  have  living  wages  for  his 
labor.  This,  Mr.  MacVeagh  character- 
ized as  a repetition  of  the  old  question, 
“Am  I my  brother’s  keeper?  which  the 
devil  has  been  inducing  human  sel- 
fishness to  ask  always  through  the  lips 
of  Cain.” 

Taking  up  the  demand  that  coal  com- 
panies shall  not  have  authority  to  hire 
private  guards  for  their  properties, 
Mr.  MacVeagh  asked  why  the  coal 
companies  should  thus  be  discriminat- 
ed against.  Mr.  Mitchell’s  answer  was 
to  the  effect  that  the  system  had  grown 
generally  pernicious  and  because  it 
was  only  right  and  proper  the  regularly 
constituted  authorities  of  the  state 
should  select  the  men  who  are  to  act  as 
guards. 

In  defense  of  the  charge  made  by  Mr. 
Mitchell  that  the  coal  and  iron  police 
were  “criminals,"  Mr.  MacVeagh  read 
the  occupations  and  reports  on  conduct 
and  habits  of  the  men  who  served  as 
guards  at  the  Erie  collieries.  They 
were  clerks,  inspectors,  surveyors, 
agents,  students,  farmers,  and  the  like, 
and  only  in  one  or  two  cases  did  those 
who  had  supervision  of  them  have  oc- 
casion to  report  any  misconduct  on 
their  part. 

They  Live  Here. 

Questions  by  Commissioner  Watkins 
developed  the  fact  that  every  one  of 
these  guards  were  men  living  in  this 
community. 

Mr.  Mitchell  insisted  that  the  regular- 
ly constituted  authorities  were  amply 
capable  of  protecting  the  property  of 
all  classes  of  people  in  the  state. 

“Mr.  Mitchell,”  said  Mr.  MacVeagh, 
with  earnestness,  “do  you  not  know, 
as  well  as  you  know  your  name  is  John 
Mitchell,  that  irt  spite  of  the  constitut- 
ed authorities  of  this  state,  of  this 
country,  of  this  city,  this  whole  region 
has  been  treated  for  five  months  to  a 
veritable  foretaste  of  hell?” 

“I  don’t  know  anything  of  the  kind,” 
replied  the  witness. 

“Well,  you  will  know  it  before  we  are 
through  with  you,”  declared  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh. 

The  examination  then  proceeded  to 
the  eight-hour-day  question  again. 

Q.  I want  for  a moment  to  ask  you 
whether  you  still  adhere  to  the  propo- 
sition that  no  one  of  our  employes  in 
the  mines  or  about  them  shall  be  en- 
titled or  allowed  to  work  beyond  eight 
hours,  no  matter  what  the  purpose  of 
that  working  may  be,  if  it  is  not  a 
charitable  purpose  or  a purpose  of  em- 
ergency or  something  of  that  kind?  A. 
I do  not  ask  that  the  hours  of  labor 
of  your  employes  be  limited  at  all,  ex- 
cept so  far  as  they  are  limited  by  the 


decision  of  the  commission,  or  bv  the 
agreement  that  you  might  make,  lim- 
iting the  hours  of  labor  yourselves. 

Q.  Eut  you  do  insist  that  that  limi- 
tation shall  be  uniform?  A.  We  favor 
a uniform  eight-hour  day. 

An  Eight  Hour  Day. 

Q.  Don’t  you  go  a little  further  than 
that?  I do  not  mean  that  you  do  so 
now,  but  have  you  not  gone  to  this  ex- 
tent: “Not  more  than  eight  houis” — 
you  must  excuse  me  for  being  insist- 
ent about  this,  because  the  commission 
is  being  asked  to  put  what  we  believe 
to  be  this  yoke  about  our  necks,  and 
we  must  examine  into  the  character  of 
it  before  they  can  intelligently  impose 
it.  We  have  agreed  to  abide  by  It  if 
they  do,  and  we  .will  loyally  abide  by 
it;  but  before  they  put  you  upon  our 
back  we  must  know  what  weight  you 
bring  with  you;  and  here  is  one  weight 
which  seems  to  me  so  brutal,  so  un- 
American,  so  indefensible  that  i ask 
you  again  whether  you  stand  by  it: 
“Not  more  than  eight  hours  shall  be 
worked  in  any  one  day  by  any  mine 
worker7”  A.  We  favor  a maximum 
eight-hour  day. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  a father 
working  in  that  mine  who  believes  he 
has  a son  that  may  be  president  of  the 
United  States — and  your  father  had  a 
son  that  may  be— is  not  at  liberty  to 
work  as  long  as  he  chooses  in  order  to 
help  that  son  to  the  position  you  oc- 
cupy today?  A.  Mr.  MacVeagh,  your 
company  regulates  that  now  by  mak- 
ing a day  ten  hours.  We  differ  with 
them  there.  We  say  make  it  eight 
hours.  There  is  no  disagreement  about 
having  a maximum  number  of  hours. 
We  have  disagreed  as  to  what  the  max- 
imum shall  be.  We  say  eight,  they  say 
ten. 

Q.  No,  Mr.  Mitchell,  we  never  have 
accepted,  and  we  never  will,  except  un- 
der the  compulsion  of  this  commission, 
such  a principle  as  that.  We  will  ac- 
cept it,  but  we  will  continue  to.  protest 
against  it  until  we  are  relieved  of  it.  I 
say  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  a right  to 
work  in  the  coal  mines  of  Illinois,  if 
he  had  had  the  chance,  fourteen  hours 
a day,  if  he  wished  to  do  so,  to  buy 
another  spelling  book  and  another  read- 
er in  order  to  enfranchise  the  laboring 
men  of  the  world.  You  say  he  had  not 
that  right?  A.  I have  not  said  any- 
thing about  what  Abraham  Lincoln 
had  a right  to  do.  Q.  Well,  but  if  he 
was  a coal  miner  you  say  he  would  not, 
and  there  are  Abraham  Lincolns  in 
your  coal  mines  today?  A.  If  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  digging  coal  now,  he  would 
be  a stronger  advocate  of  the  eight- 
hour  day  than  I am. 

Did  Not  Limit  Himself. 

Q.  That  he  might  be;  but  he  was 
splitting  rails,  which  was  a tolerably 
arduous  occupation.  He  did  not  limit 
himself  to  eight  hours;  and  you  de- 
mand it,  not  only  for  the  men  in  the 
mines,  but  for  all  the  men  above  the 
ground  as  well.-  Abraham  Lincoln  was 
doing  infinitely  harder  work  than  nine- 


tenths  of  the  men  employed  about  our 
mines  above  ground.  So  was  Mr.  Gar- 
field, when  he  was  as  a boy  trudging 
along  the  path  of  the  canal,  and  so 
was  Mr.  McKinley  in  his  early  life.  1 
only  mention  them  because  they  are 
the  three  victims  of  the  sort  of  anarchy 
which  is  the  curse  of  this  country  to- 
day, and  the  only  serious  curse  affect- 
ing it. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  here  brought  out  that 
the  executive  board  of  the  miners’ 
union  has  eighteen  soft  coal  and  three 
hard  coal  members.  He  also  inquired, 
in  detail,  as  to  administrative  workings 
of  the  union,  how  organizers  are  em- 
ployed and  paid  and  the  assessments 
levied  on  members.  In  answer  to  a 
question  by  Commissioner  Watkins  as 
to  levies,  Mr.  Mitchell  told  that  during 
the  strike  he  contributed  $54.75  a month 
in  assessments  to  the  strikers’  cause. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  inquired  into  the  set- 
tlement of  the  1900  strike  to  show  that 
its  settlement  waS  brought  about 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  pol- 
iticians, and  having,  In  a way,  shown 
this,  made  the  statement  that  if  it  was 
not  for  this  the  strike  would  not  have 
been  settled  as  it  was. 

Enumerating  the  petty  strikes  that 
followed  the  1900  settlement,  and  em- 
phasizing the  fact  that  in  the  Erie  com- 
pany’s collieries  in  six  months  follow- 
ing that  settlement  there  were  eight 
strikes  as  against  one  in  the  twenty- 
three  years  preceeding  the  coming  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  into  this  re- 
gion. Mr.  MacVeagh  asked  the  wit- 
ness: “Would  you  not  think,  naturally, 

that  the  owners  of  these  collieries  would 
hesitate  before  they  would  wish  to  con- 
tinue that  condition?” 

Mr.  Mitchell  replied  that  the  union 
sought  to  enter  into  a working  agree- 
ment with  the  companies  so  that  it 
might  be  able  to  prevent  just  such  dif- 
ficulties. 

Conclusive  Condemnation. 

Mr.  MacVeagh  pointed  to  the  fact 
that  Illinois  has  such  an  agreement  and 
then  alluded  to  the  letter  of  the  Illinois 
operators  read  on  Saturday,  which  he 
characterized  as  the  most  surprising 
and  conclusive  condemnation  of  the 
agreement  that  mortal  men  could  pen. 

“If  in  a colliery,  when  an  employee 
was  complained  of  for  inefficiency  and 
laxity,  he  said  to  the  representative  of 
the  employer,  'You  go  to  hell!’  John 
Mitchell  is  my  boss.’  Would  not  that 
interfere  with  efficiency,  in  your  judg- 
ment, if  that  spirit  existed  to  any  ex- 
tent?” asked  Mr.  MacVeagh. 

“I  should  say,”  said  Mr.  Mitchell, 
that  if  any  man  said  that,  that  partic- 
ular man  was  in  the  wrong,  and  if  I 
had  known  that  he  said  so,  I would  be 
the  first  to  tell  him.” 

Mr.  Mitchell  explained  the  letter  of 
the  Illinois  association  referred  to  above 
saying  it  was  written  by  the  operators’ 
commissioner,  Mr.  Justi,  at  his  sugges- 
tion, that  he  might  transmit  the  oper- 
ators’ complaints  in  a forcible  way  to 
the  miners,  “The  letter  is  very  much 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

overdrawn  in  consequence  of  this  pur- 
pose,” said  Mr.  Mitchell. 

Then  Mr.  Mitchell  proceeded  to  make 
a plea  for  the  recognition  of  the  union 
by  the  anthracite  operators. 

In  no  speech,  or  other  public  utter- 
ance has  he  displayed  such  earnestness 
or  eloquence  as  he  displayed  when  he# 
broke  forth  in  this  appeal.  Deserting 
his  usually  unimpassioned,  placid,  com- 
posed manner,  he  leaned  out  far  in  his 
chair  and  with  the  index  finger  of  his 
right  hand  resting  in  the  palm  of  his 
left  hand,  which  was  extended  before 
him,  argued  with  all  the  persuasive 
force  he  could  command  for  the  recog- 
nition which  he  had  declared,  previous- 
ly, was  not  a paramount  issue.  His 
words  and  manner  would  have  fitted  a 
man  pleading  for  his  life. 

“Trade  agreements,”  said  he,  “have 
prevented  these  local  disputes,  these 
local  strikes,  against  which  our  union 
is  as  much  opposed  as  any  of  the  coal 
operators  can  be.  We  do  not  want 
them.  They  injure  us  all.  Supposing 
we  do  not  have  a trade  agreement. 
Supposing  that  is  not  the  result  of  this 
investigation,  and  the  award  of  the 
commission,  the  union  will  still  be  here. 
It  is  not  within  my  power  or  the  power 
of  the  coal  companies,  nor  the  province 
of  the  commission,  nor  is  it  possible  to 
legislate  men  out  of  the  union  unless 
they  want  to  go. 

Union  Will  Be  Here. 

“The  union  will  be  here.  It  w^ll  have 
all  the  power  for  good  or  evil  that  it 
has  now.  The  coal  operators,  if  they 
desire  to,  could  not  crush  the  union. 
They  cannot  wipe  it  out.  I hope  they 
would  never  try  to  do  it.  Then  it  is 
going  to  stay  here.  As  long  as  it  is 
going  to  be  here,  why  not  have  an  ar- 
rangement that  will  place  limitations 
on  its  power  as  far  as  the  effect  of  the 
discipline  of  a working  force  is  con- 
cerned? Let  us  agree  in  contract  what 
these  powers  shall  be,  and  I dare  say 
that  if  'our  union  violates  the  contract, 
the  people  of  this  country  will  take 
good  care  that  we  have  no  union  left. 
There  will  be  no  question  about  that, 
and  if  the  operators  violate  it,  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States  will  see  that 
they  regret  it.  That  is  my  view  of  the 
situation.  I think  we  will  not  have  the 
very  things  that  you  complain  of,  and 
the  things  that  I complain  of  too.  We 
ought  to  agree  not  to  do  those  things.” 

“So  far,  we  are  in  hearty  agreement,” 
said  Mr.  MacVeagh,  “except  as  to  the 
method  of  reaching  that  result.  If 
anybody  ever  attempts  to  deny  to  an 
American  workingman  the  right  to  as- 
sociate himself  with  other  working 
men,  and  be  represented  in  collective 
bargaining  by  you — and  they  could  not 
get  any  better  representative — or  by 
Mr.  Nichols,  or  anybody  they  choose  to 
select,  you  may  call  upon  me  to  stand 
side  by  side  with  you  in  opposing  such 
legislation.  But  my  objection  is  that 
that  is  one  question,  and  my  question 
is  not  answered  at  all  by  your  expla- 
nation, though  you  undoubtedly  intend- 


25 

ed  to  answer  it.  Let  me  read  the  cru- 
cial point  of  the  question:  “We  are 

frequently  asked  why  we  do  not  dis- 
charge such  offenders.  I will  reply  that 
it  is  well-nigh  impossible  to  discharge 
a miner  in  the  Illinois  mine,  without 
laying  the  mine  idle  in  which  the  of- 
fender has  been  employed.  To  dis- 
charge a member  of  your  union — and 
this  is  addressed  to  John  Mitchell,  pres- 
ident of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America — for  any  cause,  gives  offense, 
even  when  his  offense  is  admitted, 
which  the  miners  very  generally  resent. 
This  being  the  case,  your  organization 
must  find  the  remedy  for  the  trouble, 
the  owners  of  the  mines  themselves 
being  powerless  to  act.” 

Mr.  Justi  to  Testify. 

Chairman  Gray  stated  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  the  commission  to  invite 
Mr.  Justi  to  give  testimony  as  to  con- 
ditions in  Illinois.  Mr.  Justi  is  the 
commissioner  of  the  Illinois  Coal  Oper- 
ators’ association.  Mr.  Mitchell  pro- 
voked laughter  by  describing  him  to 
Judge  Gray  as  “the  agitator  of  the  op- 
erators’ union.” 

Some  interesting  exchanges  took 
place  in  a discussion  of  the  boycotting 
question,  as  will  be  noted  from  the 
following: 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh: 

Q.  We  have  had  only  two  radical  and  ir- 
reconcilable differences:  The  limitation  of 
the  hours  of  labor  upon  the  men  desiring 
to  work  longer,  and  the  right  to  employ 
such  people  as  the  owners  of  property 
think  fit  to  resist  unlawful  attack  upon 
them.  Now  we  come  to  the  third  weapon, 
and  perhaps  the  most  objectionable  fea- 
ture which  results  from  your  organization 
—and  in  saying  that  I do  not  mean  to  say 
that  you  cause  it,  or  that  any  other  gen- 
tleman in  it  causes  it— I say  that  it  flows 
from  the  present  temper  or  your  organi- 
zation as  water  runs  down  hill.  You  un- 
dertook to  explain  your  attitude  about 
boycotting,  and  I could  not  quite  under- 
stand you,  and  yet  you  were  very  lucid,  as 
you  always  are.  Will  you  please  tell  me 
what  are  the  rights  of  a man  who  does  not 
wish  to  work  in  one  of  our  collieries  at  the 
wages  we  are  willing  to  pay  him,  against 
another  man  (and  the  members  of  his 
family)  who  does  wish  to  worK  in  our  col- 
lieries at  the  wages  we  are  willing  to  pay 
him? 

A.  We  regard  him  as  an  unfair  worker. 
We  think  the  man  is  blind  to  his  own  in- 
terests. We  think  he  is  joining  forces 
with  the  employer  to  defeat  the  fair  ends 
of  those  who  go  on  strike.  In  other 
words,  he  is  usually  termed  by  the  work- 
ing people  and  others,  a “scab.” 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Mitchell,  do  you  know  that 
m just  as  honestly  think  your  present  or- 
ganization and  your  influence  in  it,  and 
your  inuflence  with  the  country  is  in- 
jurious to  the  true  interests  of  the  work- 
ing cases,  but  I should  always  despise 
myself  if  I went  around  saying:  "John 

Mitchell  is  a scab.”  Why  should  you  say 
that  of  me?  A.  I should  not  say  it  of  you, 
Mr.  MacVeagh,  because  you  would  not 
take  another  man's  job  when  he  was  on 
a strike.  (Laughter.) 

Why  Call  a Man  Scab. 

Q.  I am  not  talking  about  that.  Why 
sliould  you  call  a man  a “scab”  who  dif- 
fers from  his  fellow  workmen  as  to  the 


26 


proceedings  of  the  anthracite 


wisdom  of  continuing  to  earn  a living  for 
himself  under  such  condition  as  he  thinks 
are  reasonable,  even  though  he  may  be 
mistaken  in  that  opinion  if  you  choose? 
A.  It  is  simply  a general  appellation  for 
every  man  who  works  when  another  one 
is  on  strike.  He  is  looked  upon,  and  I 
think  justly,  in  the  same  light  that  Bene- 
dict Arnold  was  looked  upon,  or  any 
traitor. 

Q.  Why  should  you  call  me  "scab,”  if 
1 prefer  to  work,  to  continue  to  earn  my 
living  rather  than  to  lose  my  wages  for 
five  months?  A.  Because  that  is  the  gen- 
eral term  that  applies  to  that  class  of  men 
to  destroy  the  objects  of  their  movements. 

Q.  Suppose  I continued  at  the  lawful 
occupation  I had  theretofore  been  pursu- 
ing at  wages  which  had  been  satisfactory 
to  me  before  the  organizers  appeared, 
what  are  the  limits  of  the  treatment  you 
would  feel  justified  in  extending-  to  me? 
You  say  you  would  call  me  a “scab.’’  I 
must  bear  that  as  well  as  I can.  What 
else?  A.  That  is  all.  (Laughter.) 

Q.  If,  as  a matter  of  fact,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  eruption  of  your  organiza- 
tion in  this  district,  a strike  were  de- 
clared and  opprobrious  epithets  are 
hurled  at  people  because  they  are  exer- 
cising a lawful  right  in  a lawful  manner, 
do  you  not  think  the  influence  of  your 
organization  is  evil?  A.  No;  I do  not 
think  so.  It  is  not  a consequence  of  our 
organization.  Q.  Does  it  follow  when 
your  organization  doe?  not  exist?  A. 
Such  things  will  follow  the  organization, 
the  same  as  outrages  followed  the  A my 
of  the  Potomac  as  it  went  down  South. 
The  United  States  government  was  net 
responsible  for  the  atrocities,  or  the 
wrongs,  that  followed  in  the  wake  of  the 
army.  I know  that  in  all  great  move- 
ments, regardless  of  their  character, 
there  is  a certain  element  that  is  not 
directed  by  the  movement  itself,  and  that 
contains  men  who  do  things  that  the 
movement  itself  does  not  stand  for.  Q. 
No;  but  does  the  movement  reprobate 
them,  as  with  other  great  criminals?  A. 
It  would  if  it  knew  them,  if  it  were  the 
agency  that  should  do  it  and  would  do  it, 
but,  in  the  case  you  speak  of  now,  if 
there  is  any  violation  of  the  law  in  the 
treatment  of  the  non-unionists,  or  scabs, 
so-called  by  the  unionists,  they  have  re- 
dress in  the  courts.  We  do  not  seek  to 
save  our  people  from  deserved  punish- 
ment. We  have  no  way  of  regulating  the 
individual  acts  of  our  members . 

About  Boycotting. 

Q.  No,  no,  Mr.  Mitchell;  do  not  misun- 
derstand me.  I am  asking  you  for  your 
judgment  as  the  head  of  this  organiza- 
tion, of  boycotting.  I understand  you  to 
say  that  you  accepted  it,  in  part,  the 
other  day,  and  I want  to  know  how  far? 
A.  I believe  that  they  have  the  right  to 
exercise  the  rights  given  them  by  tie 
courts  and  by  the  laws.  Q.  Has  it  ev  r 
been  decided  in  any  court  that  they  have 
a right?  A.  To  boycott?  Q.  To  boylcott. 
A.  Yes,  I think  so;  I think  there  have 
been  quite  a number  of  decisions  which 
hold  that  boycotting  is  not  illegal.  I 
am  not  able  to  give  the  decisions  off- 
hand. 

Q.  Haven't  you  seen  in  the  newspapeis 
— because  you  read  the  newspapers,  and 
ought  to — recent  decisions  in  England;  I 
think  there  are  two  of  them,  in  which 
individuals  have  been  held  to  be  respon- 
sible for  consequences,  for  damages,  to 
a very  great  extent  resulting  from  boy- 
cotting? A.  I have  reference  to  decision* 
of  American  courts. 


Q.  Very  well.  Is  there  any  American 
court  that  has  ever  justified  what  you 
call,  what  we  mean  by  boycotting,  as  you 
described  it  the  other  day;  and,  if  so, 
I would  be  very  glad  to  have  Mr.  Dar- 
row  answer.  He  will  answer  that  ques- 
tion better  than  you  will;  you  terminated 
your  legal  studies  too  early.  You  say 
Jhat  boycotting  is  simply  a strike.  You 
do  not  mean  that  do  you.  A.  Yes,  I 
mean  it  is  a strike.  It  is  a refusal  of 
people  to  spend  money  at  certain  places, 
to  patronize  certain  people;  it  is,  in  ef- 
fect, a strike  against  a merchant.  It 
might  be  against  a man  holding  a public 
office,  a refusal  to  patronize  him. 

Q.  Suppose  a grocery  store  keeper  has 
a license  to  conduct  a grocery  store.  Do 
you  ?ay  he  has  any  right,  legal  or  mora', 
to  decline  to  sell  to  me  because  I am 
pursuing  a lawful  occupation,  against 
which  you  protest?  A.  Well,  I do  not 
know  what  the  law  is  in  its  application 
to  store  keepers;  I do  not  know  whether 
they  have  the  right  to  sell  to  whom  they 
please.  Q.  Do  you  think  you  have  a 
moral  right  to  tell  him  not  to  sell  to  my 
wife  because  I am  pursuing  a lawful  oc- 
cupation in  a lawful  manner?  A.  No; 
but  I have  a right  to  tell  him  that  I do 
not  propose  to  deal  with  him  any  more. 

Q.  That  is  your  privilege,  but  if  you 
conspire  with  three  or  four  other  men  to 
do  that,  then  you  are  applying  a terror- 
ism to  him,  which  you  still  th’nk  you 
have  a right  to  do,  do  you?  A.  I thirk 
that  a man  has  a legal  right  to  spend 
his  money  wherever  he  pleases,  and  he 
has  a right  to  tell  the  merchant  his  rea- 
sons for ■. 

Has  the  Legal  Right. 

Q.  Has  he  not  the  legal  right  to  work 
where  he  pleases?  A.  He  has  a legal 
right — yes;  I think  an  American  ha?  a 
legal  right  to  spend  his  money  wherever 
he  chooses. 

Q.  Has  he  not  a moral  right  to  pursue 
a lawful  occupation  in  a lawful  manner? 
A.  He  has  not  a moral  right,  if  h's 
work  destroys  the  hopes  and  aspirations 
of  his  fellow  men. 

Q.  Suppose  he  thinks  he  is  helping?  A. 
He  never  does.  (Laughter). 

Q.  Oh,  I beg  your  pardon,  h?  is  as 
liable  to  do  that  as  you  are  to  think  the 
other  way.  But  now,  you  say  you  may 
join  with  other  men  to  notify  a store- 
keeper that  if  he  sells  the  necessaries  cf 
life  to  a man  who  is  performing  his  law- 
ful occupation  in  a lawful  manner,  that 
you  will  cease  dealing  with  him?  A.  I 
have  the  right  to  tell  him  that  I will 
cea?e  dealing  with  him  if  I want  to,  un- 
der any  circumstances 

A.  Yes,  yes,  but  have  you  a right  to  tell 
him  you  cease  dealing  with  him  because 
he  is  supplying  the  necessaries  of  life  to 
any  other  citizen,  your  equal  in  every  re- 
spect, w-ho  is  pursuing  a legal  occupa- 
tion in  an  lawful  manner?  A.  I say  I 
would  regard  it  as  a great  extreme  to 
deny  the  storekeeper  the  right  to  supply 
necessaries  of  life  to  anyone,  and  I 
should  not  sustain  any  such  action.  I do 
not  believe  in  starving  men,  even  if  they 
are  scabs. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  an  American  sys- 
tem which  ought  to  be  extended  upon  us, 
the  owners  of  these  properties,  that  when- 
ever a majority  of  our  workmen  differ 
from  a minority  in  opinion  as  to  the  hours 
of  labor  or  conditions  of  employment  the 
majority  shall  be  at  liberty  to  intimidate 
the  minority  and  the  members  of  their 
families  into  abandoning  their  honest  con- 
victions on  the  subject?  A.  It  depends 


entirely  on  what  you  mean  by  intimida- 
tion. 

Q.  You  know  perfectly  well  what  it  is; 
you  know  you  would  be  intimidated  and 
your  family  would  be  intimidated  if  the 
grocery  man  in  your  village  was  notified 
that  he  would  deal  with  you  at  his  peril; 
if  your  children  when  they  went  out  of 
the  gate  were  called  by  this  epithet  which 
you  think  not  commendable  but  admissi- 
ble; if  the  wife;  when  she  appeared  on  the 
street  were  treated  as  if  she  were  a leper 
—that  is  intimidation,  and  we  all  know 
what  it  is.  Now,  why  cannot  your  or- 
ganization come  up  like  American  men 
and  say  that  it  is  a cowardly  practice, 
that  it  is  un-American, that  it  is  brutal  and 
unmanly  and  that  you  will  abolish  it;  why 
cannot  you  do  that?  A.  Well,  to  begin 
with,  I should  be  very  much  opposed  to 
our  organization  taking  a position  that 
would  place  the  non-unionist,  the  man 
who  worked,  the  man  who  sought  to  de- 
stroy the  hopes  and  aspirations  of  the 
great  bulk  of  the  men,  the  man  who 
sought  to  destroy  the  hopes  of  the  chil- 
dren, on  the  same  plane  of  respectability 
as  the  man  who  fights  for  those  Ameri- 
can principles. 

Intimidation  of  People. 

Q.  Have  you  the  right  to  practice  the 
cowardly  and  unmanly  course  of  intimi- 
dating me  into  abandoning  my  convictions 
as  to  the  propriety  of  my  . working  by 
making  the  lives  of  my  wife  and  children 
unendurable?  That  is  the  question.  A.  It 
depends  on  what  you  mean  by  making 
their  lives  unendurable. 

Q.  You  know  how  they  can  be  made  un- 
endurable; how  easy  they  can  be  made 
unendurable.  Take  your  best  judgment 
of  what  makes  a good  wife’s  life  unen- 
durable, and  what  wrings  a father's  heart 
to  breaking  by  the  treatment  of  his  chil- 
dren. You  know  what  it  is;  why  don't 
you  stop  it?  A.  1 have  not  advised  our 
people  to  do  this  thing  that  you  say;  I 
do  not  know  that  they  do.  Q.  Of  course 
you  have  not  advised  them—  A.  I do  not 
know  of  a case  that  would  be  the  parallel 
of  cases  that  you  have  cited. 

Q.  If  such  cases  are  shown  you  until 
you  are  weary  of  them,  as  1 will  show, 
will  you  then  agree  to  take  drastic,  thor- 
ough-going. effectual  measures  to  root  it 
out,  as  you  would  any  other  deadly,  un- 
manly, un-American,  cowardly  practice? 
A.  Well,  I would  have  to  know  exactly 
what  you  mean.  Q.  We  will  get  it?  A. 
Do  you  mean  that  we  propose—  Q.  Very 
well,  you  will  get  it.  A.  (Continuing.) 
That  we  propose  and  advise  our  people 
to  ask  the  wives  of  the  non-unionists  to 
came  and  have  tea,  that  we  receive  them 
with  open  arms,  that  they  be  taken  in  and 
become — 

Q.  Not  at  all;  there  are  lots  of  non- 
unionists  who  would  not  want  you  to 
meddle  with  their  wives,  who  would  not 
want  you  to  take  them  in  your  arms  at 
all.  (Laughter.)  I mean  figuratively,  of 
course,  but  you  know  what  I mean.  Ought 
their  lives  and  the  lives  of  their  wives 
and  children  to  be  made  unendurable?  A. 
I think  those  wives  and  children  had  bet- 
ter ask  their  fathers.  Q.  That  is  your  an- 
swer— A.  I think  it  is  they  who  have 
made  their  lives  unendurable. 

Q.  That  is  your  answer?  Well.  I am 
glad  to  have  it— No.  I am  sorry  to  have 
it.  Do  you  think  a physician  ought  to  be 
warned  not  to  attend  a sick  child  of  a 
father  who  is  working  for  his  living?  A. 
No.  sir;  I do  not.  Q.  Have  you  taken  any 
method  to  prevent  such  an  outrage?  A. 
I have  never  heard  of  such  an  instance 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


27 


except  the  statements  made  by  a paper 
of  the  character  of  the  New  York  Sun.  Q. 
Do  you  mean  the  good  or  bad  character 
of  the  New  York  Sun?  A.  1 mean  tne  ex- 
tremely friendly  character  of  it  towards 
the  union  men. 

Q.  Do  you  think  a clergyman  should  be 
prohibited  from  administering  the  sacra- 
ment to  a non-union  workman?  A.  No, 
sir;  I do  not.  Q.  Do  you  think  a funeral 
should  be  stopped  because  the  driver  of 
one  of  the  carriages  is  not  a member  of 
the  union?  A.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Does  Not  Favor  It. 

Q.  Should  a physician  be  intimidated 
from  attending  his  patients  because  they 
are  non-unionists?  A.  He  should  not.  Q. 
We  have  heard  a good  deal  here  of  the 
character  of  the  life  here  and  the  desti- 
tution and  unfortunate  conditions  of  the 
children  of  the  mine  workers.  1 want  you 
to  look  at  a couple  of  photographs  pre- 
liminary to  asking  you  a question  and 
whether  you  think  they  fairly  represent 
the  average  attractiveness  of  American 
girls— and  there  are  no  girls  in  the  world 
more  attractive?  (Two  photos  shown  wit- 
ness.) A.  Yes,  I think  so. 

Q.  I will  ask  you  if  you  think  girls  of 
that  character  ought  to  be  boycotted  by 
being  deprived  of  their  employment  in  the 
public  schools  because  their  fathers  con- 
tinue to  help  to  contribute  to  the  support 
of  their  families?  A.  I presume  that  a 
public  position,  such  as  teacher  in  the 
public  schools,  is  like  any  other  public  po- 
sition, and  that  citizens  of  the  city  or 
commonwealth  or  school  district  have  a 
perfect  right  to  petition  the  directors  to 
appoint  or  dismiss  any  one  they  choose. 
That  is  done  not  only  by  workmen,  but, 
I think,  quite  often  by  employers 

By  the  Chairman: 

Q.  Is  it  fair,  Mr.  Mitchell?  A.  To  ask 
for  their  dismissal  because  their  parents 
are  working?  Q.  Yes.  A.  I should  say  as 
a general  proposition,  no,  that  that  is  go- 
ing to  an  extreme.  No  labor  organization 
advocates  that,  but,  in  addition,  it  is  fair 
to  say  that  neither  one  of  those  girls  if 
she  was  teaching  school  and  her  parents, 
or  her  father,  was  working,  would  be  an 
efficient  teacher;  because  the  children 
would  not  obey  her.  That  would  be  a 
condition  that  no  one  could  control.  The 
children  would  look  upon  the  teacher  dis- 
respectfully, unfortunately,  because  of 
the  fact  that  the  parent  was  working  dur- 
ing the  strike;  and  the  interest  of  the 
school  would  be  better  subserved  by  hav- 
ing some  one  there  whose  father  was  not 
a non-unionist,  until  things  quieted  down 
again.  That  may  not  be  a good  thing — 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh; 

Q.  Would  you  say  that  it  is  a bad  thing? 
A.  Not  the  best  thing. 

Q.  What  I wanted  to  ask  is  -whether 
you  have  any  reprobation  for  visiting  a 
penalty  upon  the  girl  who  teaches  school, 
whose  father  chooses  to  remain  at  work, 
at  the  work  upon  which  he  has  been 
engaged  for  five  years,  where  she  is  dis- 
charging her  duties  acceptably.  A.  I say 
that  neither  myself  nor  my  union,  so  far 
as  I know,  had  ever  encouraged  anything 
of  the  kind;  that  both  myself  and  tte 
union,  as  such,  as  far  as  I can  express 
its  policies,  have  declared  that  over  ard 
over  again,  that  our  people  must  obey 
the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  law.  I have 
not  picked  out  one  thing  and  said  they 
must  obey  that  and  riot  another  thing; 
I have  said  they  must  obey  all  the  laws. 

His  Duty  to  Go. 

Q.  What  is  the  proper  treatment  of  a 


member  of  a militia  company  who  is  or- 
dered out  to  suppress  violence  during  a 
strike,  who  is  also  a member  of  a labor 
organization?  A.  It  is  his  duty  to  go. 

Q.  And  what  is  the  duty  of  the  labor 
organization  to  which  he  belongs?  A.  I 
should  say  it  has  no  particular  duty  lo 
perform  in  the  matter.  Q.  Suppose  they 
expel  him?  A.  I should  say  that  was 
wrong.  Q.  Therefore,  you  oppose  that 
unhesitatingly?  A.  I say  that  a member 
of  a labor  union  should  exercise  all  the 
right,  perform  all  the  duties,  and  ac- 
cept all  the  obligations  that  any  other 
citizen  would.  I want  to  say  that  w e 
have  thousands,  hundreds,  of  miners  who 
are  members  of  the  National  Guard — that 
our  members  were  out  on  duty  during 
the  strike;  there  was  no  question  about 
it.  They  gave  part  of  their  earnings  to 
the  strike.  So  we  have  no  quarrel  on 
that. 

Q.  You  have  no  objection  whatever, 
therefore,  and  you  think  it  an  outrage 
for  any  labor  union  to  expel  a member 
who  does  go  out  in  obedience  to  his 
duty.  A.  As  far  as  I am  concerned  my- 
self, I think  each 'union  has  a right  to 
its  o-wn  law,  to  do  as  it  chooses,  although 
I think  it  is  a bad  policy;  personally,  I 
think  it  is  bad  policy.  I would  rather 
have  members  of  a trade  union  on  guard 
than  any  one  else. 

The  Chairman;  This  is  very  important 
—I  want  to  get  at  it.  Not  only  as  a 
trade  union  man  would  you  rather  have 
members  of  your  order  in  the  militia,  if 
wanted  to  preserve  law,  because  they 
were  friendly  to  you,  but  as  a citizen 
you  do  not  object  to  their  performing 
their  public  duty? 

The  Witness:  Not  at  all;  no  sir.  As  I 
said,  a member  of  a trade  union  enlists 
and  he  ought  to  willingly  perform  all  the 
duties  of  citizenship;  he  ought  to  accept 
all  their  responsibility  that  goes  with 
them,  and  the  trades  union  that  seeks  to 
stop  that  is  wrong. 

At  this  juncture  recess  was  taken  un- 
til 2 o’clock.  Mr.  Mitchell  resumed 
the  stand  in, the  afternoon  and  his  ex- 
amination by  Mr.  MacVeagh. 

The  Dr.  Roberts  referred  to  in  the 
succeeded  question  sat  at  the  miners’ 


table. 


Quoted  Dr.  Roberts. 


Q.  Here  is  an  extract  from  a book  writ- 
ten by  a friend  of  yours,  and  I have  no 
doubt  a very  excellent  and  earnest-minded 
man,  Dr.  Peter  Roberts.  Y'ou  know  him? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  he  is  a supporter  of 
your  views,  commonly  speaking.  I do 
not  mean  that  he  takes  his  views  from 
you,  or  that  you  take  your  views  from 
him,  but  you  are  generally  in  accord?  A. 
I believe  Mr.  Roberts  to  be  a supporter 
of  the  union  movement.  Q.  Dr.  Roberts 
says  in  a publication  called  “The  Anthra- 
cite Coal  Industry"  on  page  15  as  I am 
assured;  “employes  under  monopolistic 
control,  share  in  the  increased  profits  of 
operators,  and  for  this  reason  working 
men  often  do  not  object  to  a monopoly. 
If  the  Miners’  union" — That  is  your  or- 
ganization— “and  the  coal  syndicate” — 
there  isn’t  any,  but  if  there  is  my  friend 
Mr.  Wolverton  will  take  care  of  it  and  I 
am  not  in  it  (laughter) — “if  the  Miners’ 
union  and  the  coal  syndicate  can  agree 
in  their  common  interest  as  against  the 
public’’— there  is  where  you  strike  me, 
you  see — “there  is  no  reason  why  there 
cannot  be  a long  season  of  industrial 
prosperity  in  the  anthracite  coal  fields. 
Self  interest”— There  we  come  again  to 


the  question  of  Cain — “should  unite  both 
capital  and  labor  in  the  anthracite  coal 
fields,  and  it  can  be  done,  if  practical  rea- 
son on  both  sides  shall  control."  Do  you 
adhere  to  that  sentiment? 

A.  That  is  not  an  expression  of  my 
views,  by  any  means. 

Q.  Do  you  favor  a union  of  the  miners 
you  represent,  your  organization  and  the 
coal  operators  in  common  interest  as 
against  the  public.  A.  No;  I do  not  favor 
it  as  against  the  public. 

Q.  Well,  will  you,  assuming  that  neither 
our  freight  rates  pay  dividends  to  the 
owners  of  the  property  nor  our  coal  com- 
panies pay  any  dividends  to  the  owners 
of  the  property,  and  as  it  is  impossible  to 
subtract  something  from  nothing,  will 
you  point  out  why  Mr.  Roberts  is  not  ex- 
actly right  in  declaring  that  the  union 
you  ask  will  be  against  the  public?  A.  I 
should  not  care  to  point  out  at  all  any- 
thing about  that  statement  of  Mr.  Rob- 
erts. We  expect  Dr.  Roberts  to  testify 
in  the  case,  and  I have  no  doubt  that  he 
will  be  abundantly  able  to  substantiate 
his  own  statements. 

Engineers  and  Pump  Runners. 

Referring  to  the  calling  out  of  the 
steam  men,  engineers  and  pump  run- 
ners, Mr.  MacVeagh  proceeded  to  show 
that  it  -was  done  to  put  the  operators 
to  the  alternative  of  deciding  in  twelve 
days  whether  they  would  grant  the 
miners’  demands  or  suffer  the  destruc- 
tion of  their  property  with  its  conse- 
quence of  indefinite  idleness  and  a coal 
famine. 

Q.  Undoubtedly;  but  you  still  do  not 
get  the  point.  You  are  a good  enough 
American — as  good  as  any  American — to 
know  that  no  American  accepts  dictation 
kindly.  He  does  not  like  the  limit  drawn 
on  him  either  in  games  (laughter)  or  in 
life,  and  the  moment  you  draw  a limit 
of  twelve  days  and  annex  to  the  conces- 
sion of  your  demand  that  specific  lenglh 
of  time,  under  a threat  that  their  prop- 
erty will  be  destroyed,  you  are  doing 
something  totally  different  from  calli:  g 
out  the  mine  workers — a totally  different 
class  of  action;  because,  as  I say,  you 
are  then  striking  not  only  at  the  two 
classes  whom  Mr.  Roberts  thinks  ought 
to  join,  the  mine  owners  and  the  mine 
workers,  but  you  are  striking  at  that 
third  class  which  you  two  ought  to  jcin 
to  exploit — the  public.  A.  Well,  Mr.  Mc- 
Veagh,  I quite  agree  that  no  one  likes  to 
be  dictated  to,  but  when  men  are  ad- 
vised to  go  to  the  employers  and  request 
them  to  permit  them  to  work  an  eight- 
hour  day,  when  they  try  to  arbitrate  the 
differences,  when  they  offer  to  defer  to 
an  investigation— all  without  success — 
then  the  time  comes  for  dictation. 

Q.  Very  well,  then,  if  that  twelve  days 
was  given  for  the  purpose,  and  wa=  a 
reasonable  time  for  the  purpose  of  allow- 
ing other  men  to  come  in  and  preserve 
the  property  by  taking  the  places  of  the 
men  who  went  on  strike,  that  is  reason- 
able; that  I can  perfectly  understand, 
but  then  you  call  that  man  who  goes  in 
to  help  preserve  our  property  a “scab," 
and  you  subject  him  and  his  family  to  a 
life  which  it  is  needless  again  to  charac- 
terize, but  which  is  intolerable,  because 
he  comes  in  to  protect  our  property  from 
destruction,  when  our  property  is  to  fur- 
nish the  public  with  coal,  and  to  furnish 
your  men  with  employment,  and  I wou'd 
be  glad  to  have  any  further  explanation 
you  can  give,  or  if  you  do  not  care  to 


28 


Proceedings  of  the  anthracite 


give  any,  why  we  will  pass  that  ar.d 
go  on. 

At  this  juncture  Mr.  MacVeagh  en- 
tered upon  the  long-drawn-out  story  of 
the  “reign  of  terror”  consequent  upon 
the  strike.  From  the  printed  summary 
of  seventy-three  pages  he  read  of  one 
after  another  of  the  violent  acts  per- 
petrated during  the  strike,  and  showed 
when  he  could  they  were  traceable  to 
union  strikers. 

The  Schneider  Case. 

Q.  Did  you  have  your  attention  called 
to  the  case  of  John  and  Rhoda  Schneider 
— Schneider  being  a foreman  at  Dorrance 
colliery,  who  had  been  threatened.  Mrs. 
Schneider  endeavored  to  see  you  and 
failed.  Did  you  hear  of  her  endeavor? 
A.  I never  heard  of  it.  Q.  She  saw  in- 
stead Mr.  John  Fallon,  one  of  your 
members,  to  protect  her  home.  You 
know  Mr.  John  Fallon?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
'Did  you  hear  that  that  night  it  was  set 
on  fire  and  burned  down,  with  its  entire 
contents?  A.  I saw  it  in  the  papers; 
yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  spoke  about  men  relying  on  the 
local  authorities.  Was  there  a repoit 
made  to  you  of  a newspaper  man  taking 
notes  at  Duryea  during  a riot.'  at  the 
Warnke  washery?  He  was  warned  by  a 
borough  constable  standing  on  the  steps 
of  the  borough  jail  to  put  up  his  note- 
book, and  that  if  he  did  not,  "I  will  tell 
these  Polish  countrymen  of  mine  in  my 
language  and  they  will  break  your 
head?”  A.  I never  heard  of  such  an  in- 
stance. Q.  Or  of  any  such  conduct  by 
an  officer  of  the  peace?  A.  I never  heard 
of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  of  the  case  of  Mike 
Gannigan,  a borough  constable  at  Grassy 
Island  who,  when  the  troops  were  fired 
on  at  night,  a search  light  was  turned  rn 
immediately,  and  a man  seen  running 
away,  with  his  gun  in  hand,  and  when 
he  was  caught  it  was  discovered  that  he 
was  the  constable?  A.  I never  heard  of 
it. 

An  editorial  on  the  passing  of  the 
“scab,”  printed  in  the  Hazleton  Trade 
Unionists,  was  here  introduced.  It  was 
in  the  best  style  of  a man  who  wanted 
to  be  elegantly  mean  and  couldn’t,  and 
provoked  much  laughter.  Judge  Gray 
remarked:  “The  man  who  wrote  that 
must  have  put  a wet  towel  on  his  head 
when  he  got  through.” 

Q.  Because  certain  things  have  fol- 
lowed from  your  eruption  into  this  dis- 
trict, bringing  with  you  your  organization, 
that  I ask  you  to  consider,  not  whether 
you  think  the  yoke  of  your  organization 
ought  to  be  put  upon  our  necks,  but 
whether  these  disinterested  gentlemen  are 
at  liberty  to  put  it  there  against  our  pro- 
test. You  came  into  these  fields  and  you 
inaugurated  this  strike  on  the  8th  of  May. 
On  the  first  of  July,  Luigi  Vanassa  at  the 
Duryea  colliery,  was  killed.  On  the  third 
of  July  Drummond  Clinger  was  killed  at 
Brookside.  On  the  30th  of  July  Joseph 
Beddall  was  killed  at  Shenandoah.  On 
the  third  of  August  John  R.  Lineheart 
was  killed  at  Mahanoy  Plain.  On  the 
fourth  of  August  William  Pursell  was 
killed  at  Phoenix  Park,  Pottsville.  On  the 
6th  of  August,  Daniel  Sweeney  was  killed 
at  Nanticoke.  On  the  18th  of  August, 
Patrick  Sharp  was  killed  at  Lansford.  On 
the  25th  of  August  C.  M.  Brush  was  killed 
at  the  People's  Coal  company.  On  the 
Sth  of  September  Sistieno  Castelli  was 
Killed  at  Maltby,  On  the  25th  of  Septem- 


ber, James  Winston  was  killed  at  Gras- 
sy Island.  On  the  28th  of  September, 
Joseph  Gillis  was  killed  at  Nanticoke. 
On  the  2d  of  October  John  Mullen  was 
killed  at  Smith'.ille.  On  October  7.  An- 
thony Colson  was  killed  at  Shenandoah. 
On  the  9th  of  October,  William  Durham 
was  killed  at  Shenandoah,  a total  of  four- 
teen murders  in  this  region  between  the 
inauguration  of  the  strike  and  the  ap- 
pointment of  this  commission. 

Who  Killed  Them? 

A.  You  might  tell  the  commission  who 
killed  them. 

(Mr.  Darrow  handed  a memorandum  to 
witness). 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh: 

Q.  How  do  you  explain  the  coincidences 
between  the  inauguration  of  your  strike 
and  the  killing  of  more  men  than  were 
killed  in  the  battle  of  Santiago?  A.  Quite 
a large  number  of  those  you  say  were 
killed,  were  killed  by  the  coal  and  iron 
police.  Q.  I wanted  Mr.  Darrow  to  give 
you  that  list.  Will  you  kindly  name 
those  who  were  killed  by  the  coal  and 
iron  police.  Mr.  Darrow  has  tabulated  it 
for  you?  A.  Well,  I observe  in  your 
second  one  here  a man  killed  by  accident. 
I do  not  want  the  union  io  be  held  respon- 
sible for  men  who  are  killed  by  accident. 
Q.  Not  unless  it  was  an  accident  which 
resulted  from  the  union.  A.  Joseph  Bed- 
dall was  killed  at  Shenandoah.  There  are 
now  under  arrest,  and  their  trial  in  prog- 
ress, I believe,  a saloon  keeper  and  a 
butcher  for  killing  him,  and  one  miner. 
Daniel  Sweeney  was  killed  by  men  who 
were  on  strike  and  who  have  confessed 
that  they  killed  him.  Patrick  Sharp  was 
murdered  by  the  coal  and  iron  police,  no 
question  about  it,  no  one  else  charged 
with  it.  I do  not  know  this  John  Cosiy. 
I presume  he  was  a non-union  man.  I do 
not  know  the  circumstances  in  connec- 
tion with  him.  Patrick  Sharp— a deputy 
accidentally  discharged  a rifle  and  shot 
and  killed  Paul  Hanlock,  a non-union 
man.  Our  union  is  certainly  not  respon- 
sible for  that.  John  Winston,  a non- 
union man,  clubbed  to  death  at  Olyphant 
by  mob;  several  foreigners  arrested. 
From  what  I know  of  this.  I understand 
there  is  very  little  evidence  to  show  who 
committed  this  crime.  Whoever  it  is 
should  be  punished  as  they  ought  to  be; 
but  I understand  that  the  authorities 
have  no  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  done 
by  strikers.  I may  be  in  error  about  it. 
Joseph  Gillin  was  shot  by  James  Sweeney 
on  the  street.  Joseph  Gillin  was  a man 
on  strike.  He  walked  along  the  road 
holding  his  little  girl  by  the  hand,  and  a 
non-union  worker  crept  up  behind  them 
and  shot  him  dead.  James  Mullin  was 
found  in  the  railroad  track.  He  was  a 
mine  foreman.  It  is  generally  accepted 
that  he  was  killed  by  accident  by  the 
train.  At  least  I understand  no  miner 
has  been  arrested  for  his  death.  The 
county  detectives  said  it  was  due  to  acci- 
dent. James  Durham  was  shot  and  killed 
by  a soldier  at  Tamaqua.  James  Dur- 
ham, as  far  as  my  information  goes  was 
a deaf  man,  a veteran  of  the  war.  He 
walked  along  within  the  lines  where  the 
soldiers  were  stationed.  He  failed  to 
halt  when  he  was  ordered.  He  did  not 
hear  the  call  to  halt.  He  moved  forward. 
He  was  ordered  to  halt  again.  He  did 
not  hear  it  and  he  was  shot  dead  by  a 
soldier.  The  civil  authorities  have  asked 
for  the  soldier's  arrest,  but  because  of 
some  differences  with  the  military  author- 
ities they  so  far  have  been  unable  to 
bring  him  to  trial.  In  the  case  of  this 


stabbing,  James  Bonder  stabbed  a man  at 
Plymouth.  I understand  that  there  were 
some  men  who  went  into  a saloon  and 
got  into  a quarrel  there.  From  what  1 
have  been  able  to  learn  about  it  there  is 
no  connection  between  it  and  the  strike 
itself. 

The  Fourteen  Deaths. 

Q.  So  that  of  the  fourteen  deaths,  your 
organization  suffered  three,  one  of  whcm 
was  drunk  and  was  violating  the  rules, 
and  the  non-union  men,  who  were  not 
members  of  the  union,  suffered  eleven 
deaths?  A.  Oh,  well,  you  understand — 

Q.  They  were  not  members  of  the 
union?  A.  And  many  of  the  deaths  were 
not  through  members  of  the  union.  Q.  I 
understand  that.  A.  They  killed  one  an- 
other. Q.  Yes,  I am  not  asking  about 
that.  I am  asking  as  to  the  fact  that, 
eliminating  the  case  of  the  man  who  was 
intoxicated,  there  were  two  members  of 
your  association  who,  you  say,  were  un- 
justly killed?  A.  There  may  be  moie 
than  that  of  this  number.  I might  say 
that  the  names  are  not  familiar  to  me. 
that  I want  to  go  through  them.  Q.  And 
there  are  eleven  non-union  men.  Now,  I 
want  you  to  explain  how  eleven  non- 
union men  came  to  be  killed  in  this  reg- 
ion after  you  inaugurated  a peaceable 
strike?  A.  Well,  I do  not  know  in  what 
way.  John  Thompson  was  killed  by  acci- 
dent. Q.  No,  but  taking  the  number  of 
men  that  met  with  violent  deaths,  can 
you  give  us  some  idea?  A.  I do  not  know 
why  they  killed  one  another. 

The  reading  of  further  items  from 
the  criminal  calendar  of  the  strike  oc- 
cupied the  remainder  of  the  afternoon. 
Assaults  on  non-unionists,  hanging  in 
effigy,  burning  of  homes,  dynamiting, 
hooting,  serenading,  throwing  men  into 
rivers,  shooting,  clubbing,  mobs  at- 
tacking single  men  ad  infintum,  ad  lib- 
itum, were  marshalled  in  telling  array 
and  by  inference  laid  at  the  door  of 
the  miners’  union. 

“Don’t  you  think,”  said  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh, “that  this  was  what  you  would 
call  a foretaste  of  hell?” 

Mr.  Mitchell  admitted  that  if  such 
conditions  existed  they  would  be  in- 
tolerable, but  denied  that  these  things 
as  told  by  Mr.  MacVeagh  were  true. 

Q.  You  do  admit  that  if  these  outrages 
occurred  they  would  have  deterred  our 
men  from  returning  to  work?  A.  I said 
that  I do  not  believe  they  would  have  re- 
turned to  work  under  any  circumstances. 
Q.  No,  but  you  now  admit,  what  you  did 
not  up  to  this  time,  that  if  these  acts  oc- 
curred they  may  have  deterred  our  men 
from  going  to  work?  A.  They  might  have 
deterred  some  of  your  men  from  going  to 
work.  Q.  Yes.  Therefore  this  reign  of 
terror  was  an  element  in  your  success? 
A.  I deny  that  there  was  this  reign  of 
terror.  My  information  is  that  there  was 
not.  The  reign  of  terror  was  very  largely 
in  the  newspapers. 

Dynamite  a Weapon. 

Q.  Dynamite  now  appears  for  the  first 
time  as  an  efficient  weapon.  What,  in 
your  judgment,  is  the  effect  of  the  intro- 
duction of  dynamite  upon  the  minds  of 
women  and  children?  A.  Our  opinion  is 
that  it  was  introduced  by  the  coal  com- 
panies. Q.  Yes,  I have  no  doubt  of  it; 
but  the  coal  companies  blew  up  the  houses 
of  their  own  employes?  A.  We  shall  pos- 
sibly introduce  witnesses  to  tell  you 
something  about  It. 


Q.  I have  not  any  doubt  of  it,  I have 
heard  enough  testimony  in  my  life  to  be 
surprised  at  nothing;  but  you  will  have 
to  get  your  explanation  by  some  process 
not  yet  known  of  wl»y  the  owners  of  our 
properties  wished  to  blow  up  these  very 
comfortable  homes  of  which  we  saw  pho- 
tographs. Do  you  allege  that?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  You  do  allege  that  the  operators  en- 
deavored t®  blow  up  the  homes  of  men 
working  in  the  mines?  A.  No,  I do  not. 

Q.  You  knew  that  dynamite  was  used 
against  the  non-strikers?  A.  I saw  it  in 
the  newspapers.  Q.  And  did  you  hurry* 
here  to  investigate  it?  A.  I did  not;  I do 
not  know  that  it  was  used  here.  Q.  You 
did  not  know  it  was  used  against  the  non- 
union men?  A.  Where  do  you  mean? 

Q.  I mean  in  this  region.  A.  I had  seen 
in  the  papers  on  various  occasions  where 
dynamite  had  been  exploded  at  the 
bridges,  and  I think  once  nr  twice  near 
houses;  but  I want  to  say  that  a miner 
knows  how  to  use  explosives  too  well  to 
explode  dynamite  without  injuiing  peo- 
ple, if  he  wanted  to  injure  them,  and  it  is 
rather  peculiar  that  in  all  the  explosions 
of  dynamite  that  took  place  no  building 
was  destroyed  and  no  person  seriously 
hurt.  The  miners,  if  they  wanted  to  de- 
stroy by  dynamite,  would  do  it  better 
than  that. 

Q.  Do  you  not  see  that  that  gives  your 
own  cases  away?  A.  No,  I do  not  see 
how.  Q.  Because  they  did  not  want  to 
kill,  but  they  wanted  to  intimidate,  with- 
out the  danger  of  having  their  necks 
stretched  on  the  gallows;  they  intimidated 
men,  women  and  children — 

Q.  Can  you  give  a single  instance  of 
your  union  disciplining  any  one  for  law- 
lessness? A.  I have  tried  to  tell  you,  in 
as  plain  language  as  I am  capable  of,  that 
1 have  repeatedly  tried;  and  will  introduce 
my  own  addresses  to  our  members,  advis- 
ing them  not  to  violate  the  laws,  to  be 
careful  to  observe  the  law.  The  cases  as 
you  read  them  I do  not  know,  and  I think 
it  would  be  advisable  to  let  us  know  who 
did  those  things.  Q.  Of  course  orders  are 
given,  and  you  give  yours  in  sincerity. 
An  incident  that  adorns  the  dramatic  lit- 
erature of  England  is  where  the  care- 
takers of  two  young  princes  are  admon- 
ished in  the  most  exalted  language  to  take 
the  greatest  possible  care  of  them,  and 
yet  they  both  die  in  the  night  and  no- 
body suffers.  That  was  the  trouble. 

Statement  of  Non-Union.  Workers. 

The  statement  of  the  non-union  men, 
represented  by  Attorneys  Lenahan  and 
O’Brien,  was  filed  yesterday.  It  reads 
as  follows: 

The  non-union  mine  workers  we  repre- 
sent present  to  the  said  commission  the 
following  statement  of  their  demands: 

First — For  an  increase  of  20  per  cent, 
upon  the  price  paid  during  the  year  1901, 
to  employes  performing  contract  and 
piece  work. 

Second — For  a like  increase  of  20  per 
cent,  upon  the  prices  paid  during  the 
year  1901.  to  employes  paid  by  the  hour, 
day  or  week. 

This  request  for  increased  wages,  rath- 
er than  decrease  of  hours  of  labor,  is 
earnestly  urged  because  such  increase  of 
wages  will  apply  to  the  class  of  labor 
r.ow  receiving  least  pay  at  the  mines, 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


and  being,  therefore,  the  class  which  is 
especially  in  need  of  increase  of  wages. 
Instead  of  desiring  a reduction  in  the 
hours  of  employment,  we  insist  upon  a 
right  to  work  as  many  hours  as  we 
choose,  and  as  opportunity  affords,  so  as 
to  better  our  conditions  and  increase  our 
earning  capacity;  and  we  insist  that  the 
operators  shall  not  conduct  their  mines 
in  such  a way  as  to  favor  certain  work- 
ers in  certain  chambers  and  places  cf 
labor,  to  the  detriment  of  others  who  aie 
willing  to  work.  At  the  same  time,  we 
insist  upon  the  right  of  any  of  us  to  do 
as  much  work  as  the  opportunity  in  the 
particular  mine  affords  or  offers,  even 
though  it  may  result  in  less  work  being 
dene  by  another  employe,  who  through 
indisposition  is  not  willing  to  work  when 
the  opportunity  affords,  or  by  reason  of 
any  contract  with  the  mine  workers’ 
union  restricting  his  own  class  of  labor. 

Third— We  demand  the  adoption  at  each 
colliery  of  whatever  methods  may  be 
necessary  and  practicable  to  secure  for 
the  miner  a minimum  rate  of  60  cents 
per  ton  of  2,240  pounds  upon  all  coal  sold 
from  said  colliery,  the  differentials  now 
existing  at  the  various  mines  to  be  main- 
tained. 

Protest  Against  Agreement. 

Fourth— We  protest  against  the  making 
of  any  agreement  between  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America  and  our  em- 
ployers determining  what  wages  shall  be 
paid  to  us,  and  what  shall  be  the  con- 
ditions of  our  employment,  or  pretending 
to  deal  in  any  respect  whatever  with  our 
rights  or  interests  as  mine  workers. 

Fifth— We  earnestly  protest  against  any 
agreement  being  made  by  our  employers 
with  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  Ameri- 
ca, for  the  reason  that  any  agreement, 
if  made,  will  render  it  impossible  for"  us 
to  continue  to  earn  our  living  by  our 
labors  in  and  about  the  mine  in  which 
we  are  now  employed,  or  to  which  such 
agreement  applies,  and  will  subject  us 
and  our  families  to  all  manner  of  abuse, 
violence,  outrage  and  probably  murder. 

Sixth — We  insist  that  it  shall  be  an  in- 
dispensable condition  to  any  deahng  what- 
ever with  any  members  of  the  Mine 
Workers’  Union  of  America  in  the  an- 
thracite coal  fields  that  they  shall  be  ef- 
fectually required  to  desist  from  all  man- 
ner of  annoyance  to  us  and  to  our  fam- 
ilies and  shall  permit  us  to  exercise  out- 
right to  earn  our  living  in  any  lawful 
manner  we  choose,  and  under  any  con- 
ditions which  are  mutually  satisfactory 
to  our  employers  and  ourselves. 

Seventh — We  protest  against  any  rule, 
limiting  or  restricting  the  number  of  cars 
to  be  furnished  to  a contractor,  miner  or 
laborer  for  the  purpose  of  loading  the 
same,  whether  such  rule  be  made  either 
by  the  operators,  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, or  by  mutual  agreement  of  both  of 
them,  providing  that  the  furnishing  of 
the  increased  number  of  cars  to  any  con- 
tractor, miner  or  laborer  does  not  in  any 
way  restrict  the  number  of  cars  to  be 
furnished  others,  and  we  insist  that  a 
rule  shall  be  adopted  and  strictly  en- 
forced compeling  drivers  in  the  mine  or 
those  having  charge  in  the  management 
and  distribution  of  the  mine  cars  to  the 
miner,  contractor  and  laborer  not  to  fa- 
vor any  particular  miner,  contractor  or 


29 


laborer  in  such  distribution  to  the  detri- 
ment and  exclusion  of  other  contractors, 
miners  and  laborers. 

Eighth — We  believe  it  to  be  an  inalien- 
able and  undoubted  right  to  work  when 
we  can  obtain  it,  and  to  receive  as  com- 
nensation  for  it  the  best  price  we  can  ob- 
tain. And  we  further  believe  that  uie 
laws  of  the  land  vouchsafe  to  us  protec- 
tion from  insult,  outrage,  violence,  mo- 
lestation or  interference  in  the  perform- 
ance of  our  labors,  and  in  order  that  we 
shall  not  be  disturbed  in  the  full  and 
free  exercise  of  these  rights,  we  must  re 
spectfully  urge  that  the  assertion  of  them 
be  made  a part  of  the  finding  in  this  pro- 
ceedings. 

Interfered  With. 

Ninth — In  our  effort  to  earn  a livelihood 
for  ourselves,  our  families  and  those  de- 
pendent upon  us,  we  have  been  most  out- 
rageously interfered  with.  Our  homes 
have  been  assaulted  and  the  lives  of  our- 
selves and  those  dear  to  us  threatened. 
On  our  way  to  and  from  work  we  have 
been  stoned,  clubbed,  beaten,  insulted, 
jeered  at  and  the  same  course  of  out- 
rageous treatment  has  attended  us  at  our 
places  of  employment.  In  order  that  we 
might  to  some  extent  be  protected  at  our 
work,  our  employers  have  been  obliged  to 
have  guards  constantly  with  us  and  in 
many  instances  it  became  necessary  to 
escort  us  to  and  from  work  to  our  homes. 
The  sheriffs  and  their  posses  have  been 
obliged  to  issue  proclamation  after  proc- 
lamation to  preserve  the  public  peace,  and 
it  became  necessary  to  increase  their 
deputies  and  forces  to  a large  number  in 
and  about  all  the  collieries  in  the  an- 
thracite mine  region,  with  a view  to  in- 
suring public  tranquility.  By  reason  of 
the  destruction  of  life  and  property  and 
the  gravity  of  the  situation  in  and  about 
the  coal  fields  it  became  necessary  for  the 
governor  of  the  commonwealth  of  Penn- 
sylvania to  order  state  troops  to  the 
places  of  violence  and  disorder. 

And  this  serious  and  outrageous  course 
of  conduct  towards  us  was  by  no  means 
confined  to  our  homes  and  places  of  em- 
ployment. It  followed  us  everywhere.  We 
have  been  hung  in  effigy  in  public  places. 
The  vicious  and  unlawful  boycott  has 
been  practiced  to  such  an  extent  upon  us, 
that  merchants  dealing  in  the  necessaries 
of  life  have  been  forbidden  to  furnish  us 
even  with  food  and  clothing.  In  church 
where  we  worship,  the  service  has  been 
interrupted  by  members  of  the  union  be- 
cause of  our  presence  there.  Our  names 
have  been  published  in  conspicuous 
places  as  being  “unfair”  and  enemies  to 
labor.  In  very  many  instances  we  have 
been  obliged  to  stop  work  on  account  ot 
fear  and  we  have  been  in  constant  terror. 
All  kinds  of  crime,  even  murder  of  our 
comrades  and  fellow  workmen,  have  been 
committed  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
we  insisted  upon  our  right  to  work  and 
against  this  course  of  conduct  we  em- 
phatically protest. 

Tenth — We  hereby  guarantee  to  abide 
by  the  decision  of  the  commission  on  all 
questions  decided  by  them,  and  agree 
that  whatever  conclusion  it  reaches,  the 
same  shall  be  final  and  conclusive. 

(Signed)  Non-Union  Mine  Workers. 

By  John  T.  Lenahan,  Joseph  O'Brien, 
Attorneys. 


30 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Nov.  18. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  19.] 


Some  significant  questions  were  pro- 
pounded, yesterday,  to  President  John 
Mitchell,  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
by  members  of  the  mine  strike  com- 
mission. 

Mr.  Watkins  inquired  at  length  into 
the  possibility  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  enrolling  in  their  organization 
all  the  miners  of  the  country  and 
thereby  controlling  the  entire  output  of 
coal.  He  also  asked  about  the  union’s 
opposition  to  becoming  incorporated. 
At  another  part  of  the  hearing,  when 
the  eight-hour  day  was  under  discus- 
sion, Mr.  Watkins  brought  out  the  in- 
formation that  the  eight-hour  day  does 
not  prevail  with  the  soft  coal  com- 
panies shipping  east,  who  are  the  chief 
competitors  of  the  anthracite  oper- 
ators. 

Commissioner  Wright  got  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell to  say  he  did  not  think  it  was  proper 
for  the  employers  in  a certain  industry, 
in  order  to  resist  the  demands  of  a 
union,  to  paralyze  that  industry  or  any 
group  of  industries,  and  then  inquired 
of  him  if  his  answer  would  be  the  same 
if  he  asked  him  would  it  be  justifiable 
for  a union  to  paralyze  an  industry  or 
group  of  industries  10  enforce  its  de- 
mands, to  which  Mr.  Mitchell  made  the 
somewhat  evasive  reply  that  he  thought 
both  sides  should  seek  some  other  ave- 
nue of  adjustment. 

Questions  from  Chairman  Gray,  which 
practically  amounted  to  declarations, 
indicated  that  he  is  very  seriously  con- 
sidering the  justice  and  expediency  of 
restricting  individual  effort  by  limiting 
arbitrarily  the  amount  of  work  any  one 
man  shall  perform.  “It  is  very  import- 
ant, is  it  not,”  said  he,  “to  consider 
how  far  any  agencies  that  are  in  being, 
or  possible,  should  restrict  that  lib- 
erty?” 

The  Reason  Why. 

Mr.  Mitchell  was  asked  by  Commis- 
sioner Clark  if  it  was  not  true  that  one 
of  the  reasons  labor  unions  do  not  be- 
come incorporated  is  that  they  could 
be  hold  financially  responsible  for  indi- 
vidual acts  of  their  members,  to  which 
an  affirmative  reply  was  made. 

When  Commissioner  Watkins  was 
discussing  the  possible  danger  of  the 
union  gaining  control  of  the  coal  busi- 
ness and  paralyzing  that  industry  by  a 
general  tie-up,  Bishop  Spalding  entered 
the  discussion  for  a moment  with 
queries  tending  to  bring  out,  and  which 
'did  bring  out,  the  declaration  from  Mr. 
Mitchell  that  without  public  sympathy 
the  union  can  not  maintain  itself,  and 
that  if  it  did  what  was  contemplated  in 
Mr.  Watkins’  question  it  would  im- 
mediately disintegrate. 

Mr.  Mitchell  made  his  first  bad  break 
at  the  morning  hearing.  Mr.  Mae- 
Veagh  was  reading  from  various  utter- 
ances on  the  subject  of  the  personal 
liberty  of  the  individual  as  to  selling 
his  labor  as  he  pleases,  and  after  dis- 


posing of  an  excerpt  from  an  address 
by  Whitelaw  Reid  on  the  subject,  pro- 
ceeded to  read  another  excerpt  along 
somewhat  the  same  lines,  without  giv- 
ing the  identity  of  its  author.  One  of 
the  things  he  read  was:  “The  personal 

liberty  of  the  individual  citizen  is  the 
most  sacred  and  precious  inheritance  of 
Americans.” 

“Do  you  cordially  assent  to  that 
proposition?”  asked  Mr.  MacVeagh. 

Doctrine  of  Anarchy. 

“No,  sir,”  emphatically  declared  Mr. 
Mitchell.  “It  is  a contradiction  of  every 
principle  in  American  government — the 
right  of  a man  to  do  what  he  chooses. 

* * * We  do  not  want  anarchy,  and 

that  would  be  anarchy  pure  and 
simple.  * * * ” 

“This  is  the  language,  then,  of  a very 
carefully  disguised  anarchist,”  said  Mr. 
MacVeagh,  smilingly,  “because  it  is 
the  language  of  Archbishop  Ireland.” 
Mr.  Mitchell  colored  perceptibly,  but 
quickly  recovering  declared  he  did  not 
consider  Archbishop  Ireland  an  anarch- 
ist. Everything  would  depend,  he  said, 
on  what  the  archbshop  meant.  The 
verbatim  report  of  this  incident  is  as 
follows: 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh: 

Q.  Now,  as  we  have  disposed  of  Mr. 
Reed,  who  is  not  connected  with  the  New 
York  Sun,  I ask  your  attention  to  this 
statement:  “While  the  right  to  enter 

upon  a strike  is  and  must  be  conceded 
as  a right  belonging  to  the  personal  free- 
dom of  working  men,  this  much  must 
ever  be  demanded,  and  in  the  name  of 
the  same  principal  of  personal  freedom 
under  which  the  men  act  who  refuse  to 
work;  that  they  should  cease  to  work 
must  in  no  way  interfere  with  the  liberty 
of  others  who  may  wish  to  work.  The 
personal  freedom  of  the  individual  citi- 
zen is  the  most  sacred  and  precious  in- 
heritance of  Americans.  The  constitu- 
tion and  the  laws  authorize  it.  The 
spirit  of  the  country  proclaims  it.  the 
prosperity  of  the  people,  the  very  life  of 
the  nation,  require  it.”  Do  you  cordially 
assent  to  that  proposition? 

A.  No,  sir;  it  is  a contradiction  of  every 
principle  in  American  government — the 
right  of  a man  to  do  what  he  chooses. 
Every  mar.  surrenders  some  of  his  own 
rights  to  the  interests  of  society.  We  do 
not  want  anarchy,  and  that  would  he 
aoarchy,  mire  and  simple — the  right  of 
everv  man  to  do  what  he  pleases,  re- 
gardless of  'he  effect  of  what  he  does 
upon  society. 

Q.  This  is  the  'a.iguage.  then  of  a very 
carefully  disgul.-ed  anarchist,  because  it 
is  the  language  of  Archbishop  Ireland. 

Not  Assuming  That. 

A.  T am  not  assuming  that  Archbishop 
Ireland  is  an  anarchist.  It  might  be  in- 
teresting to  kngw  that  Archbishop  Ire- 
land ,is  a member  of  a committee  of 
which  I am  a member,  that  lias  declared 
for  a trade  agreement;  that  has  declared, 
in  other  words,  for  a trade  union.  Q. 
You  are  off  entirely.  T have  declared  for 
a trade  agreement,  but  yet  I have  not 
declared  In  favor  of  dynamiting  the 


houses  of  people  who  do  not  agree  with 
me  about  trade  agreements.  A.  Neither 
has  any  union  man.  Q.  And  your  an- 
swer must  be  owing  to  a lack  of  reading 
correctly  on  my  part,  or  lack  of  the 
proper  emphasis,  because  I do  not  think 
you  have  caught  the  meaning  of  Arch- 
bishop Ireland’s  statement.  He  admi's 
‘ the  right  to  enter  upon  a strike — nobody 
could  deny  that.  "They  should  cease  to 
work  must  in  no  way  interfere  with  the 
liberty  of  others  who  may  wish  to  work.” 

A.  Do  you  suppose  the  archbishop  means 
that  you  would  not  have  the  right  to  boy- 
cott? Q.  Yes.  I think  he  means,  as  some 
of  the  courts  have  decided,  as  you  know, 
that  boycotting  is  a form  of  interference 
with  the  exercise  of  the  individual  right. 

I think  you  know  that,  Mr.  Mitchell:  I 
am  not  expressing  an  opinion  on  th=t 
myself.  A.  I know  the  courts  have  held, 
and  I believe  many  of  our  most  eminent 
jurists  have  held,  that  boycotting  is  not 
unlawful.  Q.  Mr.  Darrow  savs  that  they 
have  decided  both  ways.  (Addressing  the 
commission)— That  does  not  surprise  your 
honor,  does  it?  (Addressing  the  wit- 
ness)— In  Pennsylvania,  although  you  may 
not  know  it,  it  has  been  decided  bv  our 
Supreme  court  that  it  is  illegal,  but  I 
do  not  want  to  go  into  that  just  now:  I 
will  trouble  you  for  a moment  on  that 
later.  But  this  statement  of  Archbishop 
Ireland,  who  cerainly  is  not  an  enemy  of 
organized  labor,  who  certainly  has  no  re- 
lations with  the  New  York  Sun,  that 
they  should  cease  to  work  must  in  no 
way  interfere  with  the  liberty  with  the 
others  who  may  wish  to  work  is  either 
true  or  not  true,  and  you  either  approve 
it  or  disapprove  it.  Which  is  it?  A.  It 
depends  on  what  the  archibishop  means 
by  it.  If  he  means  that  men  have  not  a 
right  to  boycott,  then  I disagree  with 
him.  I know  him  well,  and  I know  him 
to  be  a fine  gentleman.  I do  not  know 
that  he  is  regarded  as  the  supreme  court 
on  trade  union  matters  at  all.  Q.  No, 

I only  cite  him  because  a great  number  of 
your  members  belong  to  the  illustrious 
and  historic  church  of  which  he  is  a dis- 
tinguished ornament,  and  because  he  has 
given  rather  careful  attention,  as  I have 
always  understood,  to  labor  questions.  It 
is  not  that  he  is  an  authority  on  labor 
unions  It  is  that  he  is  an  American 
citizen,  speaking  with  the  authority  of  a 
great  prelate  of  an  illustrious  and  his- 
toric Christian  church:  and  I should  be 
glad  to  know  now  if  you  can  say  any- 
thing further  as  to  your  agreement  rr 
disagreement  with  him.  A.  I have  said 
emphatically  that  if  it  means  that  men 
shall  not  have  the  right  to  picket,  that 
they  shall  not  have  the  right  to  peacefully 
presuade  men  not  to  work,  that  I dis- 
agree with  the  archbishop,  or  with  the 
views  you  say  he  has  expressed.  Q.  Well, 
this  is  a literal  quotation  from  his  state- 
ment. 

In  this  testimony  Mr.  Mitchell  showed 
lie  favored  a first  step  toward  breaking 
away  from  the  dominating  majority  of 
the  soft  coal  men  in  questions  regard- 
ing anthracite  conditions.  He  said: 

“I  propose  to  recommend  at  the  next 
convention  of  our  union  that  the  miners 
of  the  anthracite  fields  cannot  be  called 
upon  to  strike  by  a majority  vote  of  the 
national  executive  board.  In  other 


words,  that  we  shall  invest  the  same 
authority  in  the  three  members  from 
the  anthracite  coal  fields  as  there  is 
now  in  the  eighteen  from  the  bitumin- 
ous field,  when  the  question  of  strike  is 
to  be  considered,  giving  them  equal 
authority.” 

On  Stand  All  Day. 

Mr.  Mitchell  was  on  the  stand  again 
all  of  yesterday,  under  cross-examina- 
tion. Mr.  MacVeagh,  who  had  been  ex- 
amining him  since  Saturday’s  session, 
finished  with  him  at  11  o’clock,  and  was 
followed  by  Francis  I.  Gowan,  repre- 
senting the  Lehigh  Valley  Coal  com- 
pany, who  continued  the  cross-exami- 
nation until  a few  minutes  before  12. SO, 
the  recess  hour,  when  W.  W.  Ross,  rep- 
resenting the  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  company,  took  it  up.  Mr. 
Mitchell  was  still  under  cross-examina- 
tion by  Mr.  Ross  when  adjournment 
was  had  for  the  day.  Today,  A.  H.  Mc- 
Olintock,  representing  the  Lehigh  and 
Wilkes-Barre  Coal  company;  John  B. 
Kerr,  representing  the  Ontario  and 
Western  company,  and  Simon  P.  Wol- 
verton,  representing  the  Philadelphia 
and  Reading  company,  will  take  turns 
at  questioning  Mr.  Mitchell.  It  is  ex- 
pected, however,  they  will  not  examine 
him  at  any  great  length  and  that  he 
will  be  relieved  from  the  witness  stand 
this  afternoon.  Judge  Gray  mildly  sug- 
gested yesterday  morning  that  the 
cross-examination  of  Mr.  Mitchell  was 
becoming  rather  protracted. 

The  crowd  in  attendance  at  yester- 
day’s sessions  -was  again  as  big  as  the 
court  room  would  accommodate.  More 
ladies  were  in  attendance  than  on  any 
previous  day.  Four  patrolmen,  in  charge 
of  Captain  Williams,  were  at  the  door 
to  prevent  a repetition  of  the  incident 
of  the  day  before,  -when  the  crowd 
“rushed”  the  tipstaves  and  forced  its 
way  into  the  room  and  later,  in  another 
attempt  at  “rushing,”  pushed  a man 
clear  through  the  long  glass  panel  of 
the  door. 

Those  having  business  inside  or  pres- 
ent by  special  invitation  were  admitted 
through  the  judges’  doorway.  Others 
were  compelled  to  line  up  in  two  rows, 
extending  along  the  corridor,  and  wait 
their  turn  to  get  in.  After  the  room 
was  filled,  no  one  was  allowed  to  enter 
until  some  one  else  had  come  out  to 
make  room  for  him.  Many  miners  were 
among  the  spectators  and  laughed  with 
great  heartiness  when  Mitchell  made 
some  witty  remark.  Once  there  was 
some  mild  handclapping  in  applause  of 
Mitchell  making  a telling  answer,  but 
it.  was  so  subdued  it  attracted  no  at- 
tention from  the  commissioners. 

Bishop  an  Onlooker. 

Bishop  Hoban  was  an  onlooker  dur- 
ing the  morning  session.  He  sat  on  the 
platform  to  the  right  of  the  commis- 
sioners on  one  of  the  chairs  reserved  for 
distinguished  visitors. 

The  general  trend  of  the  examination 
was  practically  similar  to  that  of  the 
preceding  days,  although  the  attorneys 
fuIlowin~  Mr.  MacVeagh  were  not  as 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

ready  as  he  to  provoke  discussions 
with  the  witness,  confining  themselves 
more  particularly  to  the  question  and 
answer  method  of  developing  the  infor- 
mation they  would  put  before  the  com- 
mission. 

Mr.  MapVeagh  again  dealt  very  gen- 
erally with  the  recognition  question, 
emphasizing  the  ill-effects  on  a com- 
munity following  in  the  wake  of  vio- 
lence such  as  prevailed  during  the 
strike,  and  the  moral,  if  not  legal, 
wrong  of  preventing  a man  from  sell- 
ing his  labor  where,  when  and  how  he 
chooses,  or  limiting  the  amount  of  work 
he  shall  be  permitted  to  do.  Mr.  Gowan 
and  Mr.  Ross  confined  themselves 
mainly  to  a consideration  of  the  ques- 
tions at  issue  as  affecting  their  own  re- 
spective companies’  properties. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  session 
Mr.  Lenahan  presented  his  power  of  at- 
torney to  represent  the  non-union  men. 
It  was  a paper  containing  the  names 
of  over  2,000  non-unionists,  requesting 
Mr.  Lenahan  and  Mr.  O’Brien  to  repre- 
sent them.  For  reasons,  which  he  said 
it  was  not  necessary  to  mention  at  that 
time,  he  would  request  the  commission 
not  to  disclose  the  names  until  they 
proceed  to  take  testimony  to  sustain 
the  averments  of  the  statement  filed 
the  night  before  with  the  recorder. 

“You  can  hand  what  you  call  your 
authority,  or  power  of  attorney  from 
these  two  thousand  of  your  clients 
more  or  less,  to  the  recorder,”  said 
Judge  Gray,  “but  it  will  not  go  further 
until  the  commission  takes  further 
steps  about  it.  We  do  not  keep  any- 
thing that  belongs  to  this  record  from 
the  public,  but  you  may  if  you  choose 
hand  in  the  papers  and  we  will  con- 
sider the  matter,  although  it  will  not 
be  part  of  the  record,  or  be  filed  in  any 
official  sense  upon  which  any  argument 
can  be  made  that  you  are  a party  to 
this  proceeding.  If  you  wish  to  do  so, 
you  may  hand  to  the  assistant  recorder 
the  names  that  you  speak  of.” 

Then  the  cross-examination  of  Mr. 
Mitchell  by  Mr.  MacVeagh  was  re- 
sumed. Referring  to  the  list  of  strike 
“outrages,”  enumerated  at  Monday 
afternoon’s  session,  Mr.  MacVeagh 
asked  the  "witness  to  give  his  opinion 
of  their  reflex  influences  on  the  men 
committing  them,  which  he  said  he 
hoped  to  be  able  to  prove  were  mem- 
bers of  the  miners’  union. 

After  remarking  that  he  did  not 
propose  to  assume  that  the  statement 
of  these  outrages  as  presented  was 
true,  Mr.  Mitchell  said  he  believed  the 
number  of  church-goers  in  the  anthra- 
cite region  was  comparatively  as  large 
as  in  any  other  community.  When 
Mr.  MacVeagh  insisted  upon  having  a 
response  to  his  question,  the  witness 
said  he  would  agree  the  influence  was 
not  for  good. 

Proceeding,  Mr.  Mitchell  stated  that 
he  knew'  “from  his  newspaper  friends” 
that  the  list  of  “outrages”  had  been 
compiled  by  a New  York  Sun  corres- 
pondent who  was  bitterly  hostile  to 
union  labor,-  and  who  having  no  new 


31 

story  to  write  about  the  strikers,  went 
over  the  files  of  the  Sun  and  made  up 
the  list  from  his  own  previous  des- 
patches. 

Growing  Spirit  of  Lawlessness. 

“What  I am  trying  to  show,”  said  Mr. 
MacVeagh,  “is  that  there  is  a growing 
spirit  of  violence  and  disregard  of  law  in 
your  organization;  that  its  members  are 
becoming  more  and  more  reckless  of  re- 
straiilt,  and  impatient  of  it,  and  that  your 
influence  over  them  is  insufficient  to  keep 
them  law-abiding  and  peaceable  as  you 
have  described  them  to  be.  So  that,  if  a 
community— that  was  my  question— is 
aroused  to  a great  pitch  of  excitement 
and  violence,  and  murders  are  committed 
in  consequence  of  the  assertion  of  your 
right  to  deny  other  men  the  right  to  labor 
for  their  living,  then  I say  the  conse- 
quences are  upon  your  head  whether  your 
men  committed  the  murders,  or  some- 
body else,  and  whether  your  motives  are 
good  or  bad;  the  consequences  remain. 

“Well.  Mr.  MacVeagh.”  said  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell, “as  to  the  fear  that  my  influence  is 
not  sufficient  to  deter  men  from  the  com- 
mission of  crimes,  that  is  a contradiction 
of  the  claims  often  made  about  me.  You 
have  charged  that  men  working  in  the 
mines  have  said  to  the  men  by  whom  they 
were  employed  that  John  Mitchell  was 
their  boss;  you  have  charged  that  I was 
so  influential  that  if  I told  them  to  go  on 
strike  they  would  go  on  strike.  In  other 
words  that  they  were  like  so  many  check- 
ers that  I could  move  here  and  there  and 
set  down  wherever  1 wanted  to. 

Q.  You  are  not  attributing  that  opin- 
ion to  me? 

A.  I say  that  has  been  said  of  me. 

Here  Mr.  MacVeagh  quoted  from  an 
address  by  Hon.  Whitelaw  Reid,*  in 
which  the  declaration  is  made  that  the 
right  of  every  man  to  sell  his  labor, 
if  he  can,-  and  be  protected  in  selling  it 
cannot  be  arbitrated  any  more  than 
his  right  to  breathe. 

Mr.  -Mitchell’s  comment  on  this  was 
that  Mr.  Reid  would  have  made  the 
same  statement  about  the  right  of  peo- 
ple to  sell  coal  wherever  they  choose, 
which  freedom  he  claimed  does  not  ex- 
ist. Some  operators,  , he  alleged,  are 
compelled  to  sell  coal  where  others  di- 
rect. A man  has  no  right,  he  added, 
to  sell  his  labor  for  a dollar  a day  at 
a mine  if  that  would  tend  to  reduce 
the  two  or  three  hundred  other  work- 
ingmen’s wages  to  a dollar  a day. 

When  asked  whether  or  not  he  con- 
sidered it  wrong  to  prevent  a man  from 
working  by  intimidating  him,  Mr. 
Mitchell  had  recourse  to  his  oft-used 
reply  of  “I  am  opposed  to  anything 
that  is  unlawful.”  He,  later,  declared 
it  was  not  unlawful  to  tell  a man  it 
was  to  his  best  interests  to  stay  away 
from  work  during  a strike.  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh asked  if  he  considered  it  unlaw- 
ful to  morally  persuade  a man  to  quit 
work  if  the  man’s  next  door  neighbor, 
who  had  refused  to  stop  work  had  had 
his  house  blown  up  with  dynamite  the 
night  before.  Mr.  Mitchell  held  that 
that  did  .not  enter  into  the  case;  that 
it  made  no  difference  if  the  neighbor’s 
house  had  been  blown  up  the  night  be- 
fore or  a year  before. 


32 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Disrespect  for  Judiciary. 

The  alleged  growing  disrespect  for 
the  judiciary  on  the  part  of  labor 
unions  was  made  the  subject  of  a 
lengthy  discussion  between  lawyer  and 
witness.  Mr.  MacVeagh  contended 
that  whether  the  decision  of  a court 
was  favorable  or  adverse  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  witness  and  other  labor 
leaders  to  continuously  preach  that  the 
welfare  of  all  classes  depended  on  a 
growing  respect  for  the  judiciary.  Mr. 
Mitchell  indicated  he  would  hesitate 
some  time  before  he  would  preach  to 
people  to  have  a growing  respect  for 
Judge  Jackson. 

“When  in  an  opinion  we  are  called 
vampires  and  loafers  and  denounced 
as  men  who  live  upon  the  heart’s  blood 
of  working  men,”  excitedly  declared 
the  witness,  “we  have  a right  to  re- 
sent it.” 

Mr.  Gowan  began  his  cross-examina- 
tion, as  did  the  attorneys  preceding 
him,  by  eliciting  from  Mr.  Mitchell  an 
admission  that  he  knew  nothing  specific 
of  the  wages  or  other  conditions  at  the 
mines  of  the  company  he  was  repre- 
senting. Mr.  Mitchell  explained  he  had 
only  a general  knowledge,  but  that 
data  would  be  presented  later  giving 
specific  information  supporting  the  con- 
tentions he  makes. 

Next  he  had  the  witness  tell  what  a 
bituminous  miner  is  actually  required 
to  do  in  mining  coal,  and  then  took  up 
the  various  matters  at  issue.  The  ex- 
amination was  proceeded  with  substan- 
tially as  follows: 

Q.  Now,  coming  to  the  question  of  the 
eight-hour  day,  what  class  of  labor  do 
you  regard  as  the  most  exacting  and 
laborious  in  the  anthracite  mines? 

A.  Well,  I presume  that  the  work  of  a 
miner  himself  is  the  most  difficult — the 
most  responsible.  Possibly,  it  is  not  quite 
as  laborious  as  that  of  the  man  who  shov- 
els coal,  but  the  responsibility  is  much 
greater. 

Q.  Why  is  it,  then,  that  in  the  demands 
which  you  have  presented  to  the  com- 
mission, you  have  not  asked  for  an  eight- 
hour  day  for  the  miner  and  laborer?  A. 
That  -would  necesasrily  follow.  The  eight- 
hour  day  would  come  to  them  as  tfe 
result  of  the  eight-hour  day  for  the  mine 
laborers. 

Would  Receive  l\To  Cars. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  they  could 
not  work  except  at  the  time  when  the 
others  were  working.  A.  No;  it  wou'd 
mean  that  if  an  eight-hour  day  were 
adopted,  the  drivers  and  all  the  other 
day  laborers  would  stop  at  the  end  of 
eight  hours.  That  of  itself  would  stop 
the  miner  and  his  laborer.  He  would  re- 
ceive no  more  cars. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  only  answer  you 
have  to  that  question?  A.  Yes,  fir,  direct- 
ly. When  we  asked  for  the  eight-hour 
day  and  specified  the  laborers,  or  parti- 
cularly specified  them,  w’e  did  it  in  order 
to  secure  to  them  an  increase  of  pay. 
We  expect  the  contract  miner  and  his 
laborer  to  work  only  eight  hours  a day. 

Q.  How  do  you  expect  to  secure  an 
increase  of  pay  for  the  man  working  by 
the  month  or  by  the  day,  by  limiting  his 
hours  of  labor  to  eight  hours?  A.  Well, 
if  a man  worked  in  one  of  your  mines 
now  200  days  in  a year,  and  was  paid 


$2.00  a day,  he  would  receive  in  the  en- 
tire year  $400.  He  would  work  2.000  hours. 
If  you  put  him  on  an  eight-hour  day,  he 
would  work  240  days,  eight  hours  a day, 
or  2,000  hours,  and  he  would  receive  $480. 

Q.  Now,  you  are  assuming,  are  you  not, 
that  under  existing  conditions,  or  under 
conditions  which  have  lately,  prevailed, 
that  the  mine  is  not  run  full  time,  ard 
therefore  the  breaker  time  can  be  in- 
creased? That  is  necessary  in  order  to 
give  these  men  an  increase  of  wages,  is 
it  not?  A.  No,  the  breaker  runs  the 
same  number  of  hours  that  it  has  run  any 
other  year,  but  you  divide  it  into  a 
greater  number  of  days. 

Q.  Take  a man  who  has  .worked  every 
day  last  year  that  the  breaker  ran,  ten 
hours,  how  is  he,  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
to  have  more  money  in  his  pocket  by 
having  the  hours  reduced  from  ten  to 
eight?  A.  He  would  not  have  more  money 
in  his  pocket,  tie  would  simply  have  less 
work  to  do. 

Q.  Have  you  not  once  stated,  Mr.  Mit- 
chell, before  the  industrial  commission, 
that  one  of  the  main  objects  of  the  eight - 
hour  law  was  to  increase  the  number  of 
men  employed?  A.  That  has  been  the 
idea,  in  general  terms,  that  the  eight- 
hour  day  absorbs  the  unemployed  labor. 

Q.  And  that  is  one  of  the  great  advant- 
ages, is  it  not,  from  your  point  of  view? 
A.  I find  that  in  the  coal  fields  it  has 
not  had  that  effect,  because  it  has  in- 
creased the  intensity  of  labor  so  much 
that  it  has  not  taken  up  or  absorbed  very 
many  of  the  unemployed.  In  other 
words,  it  has  developed  in  the  coal  fields 
that  men  do  as  much  work  in  eight  hours 
as  they  formerly  did  in  ten. 

Q.  But  unless  the  breaker  time  can  be 
increased,  the  reduction  from  ten  to  eight 
hours  will  not  increase  the  annual  earn- 
ings of  the  men  whose  time  will  be  re- 
duced. A.  Yes,  sir:  it  would  increase  it 
twenty  per  cent.  Q.  The  annual  earn- 
ings? A.  Yes,  sir. 

Eight  Hour  Question. 

Q.  T say  unless  the  breaker  time  can  be 
increased.  A.  Why,  if  the  breaker  ran  the 
same  number  of  hours  now  in  the  year 
that  it  did  before,  and  a man  worked 
eight  hours  a day  and  received  the  same 
pay  for  eight  hours  that  he  formerly  re- 
ceived for  ten,  he  would  necessarily,  in 
the  aggregate,  receive  twenty  per  cent, 
more  wages  at  the  end  of  the  year.  Q. 
Because  they  would  have  to  work  over- 
time? A.  No,  sir:  because  they  work  the 
same  number  of  hours  they  ordinarily  do 
in  a year.  Q.  But  you  do  not  ask  for  an 
increase  of  wages.  A.  It  amounts  to  the 
same  thing. 

Q.  Well,  I will  leave  it  there.  Now,  Mr. 
Mitchell,  coming  to  the  question  of  the 
weighing  of  coal,  your  constitution  has 
something  to  say,  has  it  not,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  weighing  or  determining  the 
method  of  paying  for  coal  mined?  A. 
Yec,  sir.  Q.  Do  you  recall  what  it  says? 
A.  The  declaration  of  principles  provides 
for  a proper  system  of  weighing  or  meas- 
uring the  earnings  of  the  miner.  Q. 
“Shall  be  properly  weighed  or  meas- 
ured?” A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  So  that  the  constitution  recognizes 
the  propriety  of  paying  for  coal  by  meas- 
urement? A.  No,  you  do  not  understand. 
That  is  not  what  it  means  at  all.  The 
word  "measure”  in  there  simply  means 
the  correct  method  of  measuring  with  a 
tape  the  amount  of  entry  a man  drives  in 
a mine.  The  miners  believe  that  they 
were  cheated  in  the  matter  of  measure- 
ments in  some  mines,  in  that  way,  and 
that  refers  to  the  amount  -paid  for  driv- 


ing entry  work,  or  narrow  work,  as  we 
call  it  here.  It  was  intended  that  there 
should  be  a proper  method  of  measuring 
that.  It  did  not  refer  to  paying  for  the 
coal  by  car.  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Q.  But  still  payment  by  the  car  is  pay- 
ment by  measurement — perhaps  not  as 
you  construe  the  constitution,  but  it  is. 
A.  No,  and  I might  say  that  that  was 
also  intended  to  have  application  in  the 
case  of  the  thick  veins,  where  they  ac- 
tually pay  by  cubical  or  lineal  measure- 
ment. 

Q.  How  many  of  the  mines  in  the  an- 
thracite field  are  so  equipped  as  to  en- 
able them  to  weigh  the  coal?  A.  You 
mean  with  scales?  Q.  Weigh  it  in  any 
way?  A.  I think  that  every  mine  in  the 
anthracite  field  in  which  the  coal  comes 
to  the  breaker  as  it  is  loaded  by  the 
miners,  the  coal  could  be  paid  for  by 
weight.  Q.  I am  not  asking  you  that.  I 
am  asking  you  how  many  of  the  mines 
today  are  so  equipped?  A.  I don’t  know. 
I understand  that  several  of  the  com- 
panies are  weighing  coal  now.  I refer  to 
the  Erie  and  some  of  the  others.  Q.  Do 
you  now  know  that  they  are  a very 
small  proportion?  A.  Very  small;  yes, 
sir.  Q.  And  you  do  not  know  the  ex- 
pense that  would  be  entailed  in  adapting 
the  mines  to  the  changed  conditions?  A. 
I do  not  know  how  much  it  would  be.  I 
do  not  think  it  would  be  any  very  great 
amount.  Q.  Are  you  not  aware  that  to 
do  that  in  mines  not  originally  adapted  to 
the  method  of  weighing  would  reduce  the 
output  of  the  colliery  materially?  A.  No, 
sir.  Q.  It  would  not  hold  back  the  load- 
ing? A.  I think  very  little.  The  scales 
may  be  placed  at  any  place  before  the 
coal  reaches  the  breaker,  and  scales  are 
now  constructed  so  that  a car  may  be 
weighed  while  moving. 

Matter  of  Topping. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Mitchell.  I did  not  qui’e 
clearly  understand  your  objection  to  the 
method  of  paying  by  the  car  which  is  in 
vogue  in  so  many  of  the  mines  in  this 
region.  A.  Well,  there  are  many  objec- 
tions to  it,  but  there  is  one  objection,  in 
particular,  that  has  caused  a great  deal 
of  discontent,  and  I understand  a num- 
ber of  local  strikes.  That  is  the  rule 
that  requires  a man  to  have  a certain 
amount  of  topping  on  a car  when  the  car 
reaches  the  breaker.  It  may  be  no  fault 
of  the  miners  that  it  has  not  the  re- 
quired amount  of  topping  on  it. 

Q.  But  is  not  that  a matter  of  agree- 
ment; that  the  miner  is  paid  by  the  car 
with  a topping  of  six  inches?  And  what 
difference  does  it  make  to  the  miner, 
supposing  that  the  rate  of  pay  is  adjusted 
accordingly,  whether  he  loads  the  car  to 
the  top  of  the  side  or  whether  he  loads 
it  with  six  inches  of  topping?  What  dif- 
ference does  it  make  to  the  miner?  A.  If 
the  agreement  with  the  company  you  rep- 
resent was  that  there  must  be  six  inches 
of  topping  on  the  car  when  it  reaches  the 
breaker,  if  is  absolutely  impossible  for  the 
miner  to  tell  how  much  coal  he  must  put 
on  the  car  when  he  loads  it  to  make  six 
Inches  on  it  when  it  reaches  the  breaker. 
He  may  have  put  six  inches  on  it  in 
good  faith  when  it  left  the  place  he 
loaded  it:  but  by  reason  of  the  long  hau\ 
and  the  rough  haul,  the  shawlng.  and  so 
forth,  or  possibly,  an  accident  en  route, 
that  knocked  the  topping  off  or  settled  it 
down,  when  it  reached  the  breaker  there 
was  not  six  inches  on  it,  and  then  the 
miner  is  docked  for  light  loading. 

Q.  Have  you  never  heard  of  miners 
loading  cars  in  such  a way  as  to  leave 
an  undue  amount  of  space  between  the 


lumps?  A.  Tes,  sir.  Q.  Tou  do  not  think 
that  is  an  impossible  thing-  to  he  done? 
A.  No,  it  is  not  an  impossible  thing.  I 
understand  it  has  been  done.  Q.  And 
therefore  if  the  coal  were  started  with 
six  inches  topping,  but  reached  the  sur- 
face with  no  topping,  do  you  not  think 
that  is  some  indication  that  that  coal  was 
improperly  loaded?  A.  It  might  be,  and 
it  might  not  be.  Q.  But  it  might  be?  A. 
It  might  be,  but  you  can  see  that  under 
the  weighing  system  the  miner  wou'd 
have  no  incentive  to  be  dishonest.  He 
would  not  want  to  "crib”  the  car,  as 
the  miners  call  that,  because  he  would 
be  paid  for  the  amount  of  coal  he  put 
in  the  car. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Mithchell,  take  the  case  of 
a car  loaded  in  the  way  I have  indicated, 
so  that  the  topping  has  disappeared  by 
the  time  the  car  reaches  the  pit’s  mouth, 
the  weight  of  the  coal  would  be  just  pre- 
cisely the  same  in  that  car  when  it 
started  and  when  it  reached  the  pit’s 
mouth,  would  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
And  under  the  weighing  system  he  would 
not  be  paid  for  any  more  coal  than  he 
loaded?  A.  No,  sir.  Q.  Where  would  be 
the  advantage,  then?  A.  Because  he 
would  not  be  docked  for  the  settling  of 
the  coal  enroute,  and  under  the  present 
system  he  is  docked  if  it  is  less  than  s;x 
inches  when  it  gets  to  the  pit’s  mouth. 
Q.  Don’t  you  agree  that  if  he  agrees  to 
load  coal  with  six  inches  topping  that  l~e 
ought  to  be  docked  if  he  does  not  do 

it . A.  How  can  he  help . Q.  Wait. 

I say  if  he  does  not  do  it.  I do  not  mean 
a case  where  he  thought  he  had  done  so. 
A.  But  it  is  a physical  impossibility  for 
him  when  he  loads  it  to  say  that  it  will 
not  settle.  He  may  have  put  a foot  of 
topping  on.  He  ought  to  be  pa’id  for  the 
amount  he  puts  on. 

Matter  of  Agreement. 

Q.  That  is  a matter  of  agreement.  Is 
not  the  agreement  that  he  shall  be  paid 
for  a car  with  six  inches  of  topping,  de- 
livered or  turned  over  to  the  company? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  agreement,  but  it 
is  absolutely  unfair.  Q.  Well,  that  is  the 
agreement,  isn’t  it?  A.  That  is  what  I 
understand — it  is  not  an  agreement;  it  is 
the  requirement  of  the  coal  company. 
There  is  no  agreement.  Q.  The  miner  has 
agreed  to  furnish  that  amount  of  coal, 
under  the  requirements  of  the  coal  com- 
pany. A.  He  is  required  to  do  that  by 
the  coal  company — yes  sir. 

Commissioner  Watkins: 

Mr.  Gowan,  before  you  leave  the  sub- 
ject of  weighing  coal,  I should  like  to 
have  Mr.  Mitdhell  explain  to  the  com- 
mission how  he  would  provide,  in  case 
the  company  paid  for  the  coal  that  was  in 
the  car  on  the  basis  of  2.240  pounds  to  the 
ton,  how  he  would  provide  for  an  allow- 
ance for  the  impurities.  A.  I think  the 
company  and  the  men  should  both  select 
representatives  and  I think  a person 
should  be  docked  for  impurities.  That  is 
done  now. 

Q.  That  is  done  now  by  their  fixing  an 
amount,  as  I understand,  of  twenty-seven 
hundred  to  thirty-two  hundred  pounds,  to 
cover  the  impurities.  A.  In  some  of  the 
mines  now  the  miners  have  what  is  called 
a check  docking  boss  who  with  the  com- 
pany's docking  boss  determine  the  amount 
they  shall  be  docked  for  impurities,  where 
it  appears  to  be  an  excess  amount. 

By  Commissioner  Watkins: 

Q.  But  veins  vary  so  in  their  impurities 
that  it  is  necessary  to  make  a different 
allowance.  It  is  impracticable  for  the 
miner  to  take  out  all  the  impurities  in, 


mine;  strike  commission 


some  veins,  or  he  can  take  them  out  in 
some  veins  to  a greater  extent  than  he 
can  in  others.  They  leave  in  a certain 
amount  and  the  companies  permit  it  to 
be  taken  out  in  the  breaker.  It  is  to  the 
advantage  of  both  parties  that  that  shall 
be  done.  I am  at  a loss  mvself  to  see 
how  you  can  get  a uniform  basis  ot 
weighing  by  the  ton,  granting  your 
claims,  that  would  work  out  satisfactorily 
on  a basis  of  2,240  pounds  to  the  ton  un- 
less you  add  to  it  a certain  amount  for 
impurities,  and  that  could  not  be  a fixed 
amount  all  over  the  region,  and  there 
would  still  be  friction  in  some  cases  in 
the  future. 

The  Evil  of  It. 

A.  It  could  not  be  a fixed  amount,  and 
it  is  the  fact  that  it  is  a fixed  amount 
now  that  makes  the  system  so  unjust. 
Will  you  permit  me  to  explain  it?  Sup- 
pose that  two  men  were  working  in  ad- 
joining breasts,  and  one  of  the  men  was 
to  load  2,800  pounds  of  clean  coal  in  his 
car  and  send  it  out  to  be  weighed.  Ha 
would  receive  74  cents  for  it.  The  man 
working  right  beside  him  might  send  out 
a car  containing  ten  hundred  pounds  of 
refuse  matter  in  it.  He  would  be  paid  74 
cents  for  his  twenty-eight  hundred 
pounds.  In  other  words  the  man  who 
does  not  load  impurities  is  penalized  for 
the  man  who  does;  in  order  for  the  com- 
pany to  obtain  from  all  sources  a twent- 
two  hundred  and  forty  pound  ton  of  mar- 
ketable coal,  they  are  compelled  under 
this  system  to  inflict  a uniform  penalty 
on  all  of  the  men  regardless  of  whether 
they  load  impurities  or  not.  Now  the  man 
who  loads  impurities  is  the  one  who  ought 
to  be  docked  for  it.  not  the  man  who 
does  not. 

Q.  How  will  you  avoid  that  in  the  fu-  . 
ture  by  this  system  of  paying  for  a ton 
of  2,240  pounds? 

A.  Now,  I should  say  that  it  would  be 
just  as  easy  to  make  2,240  pounds  the 
basis  of  payment  as  it  is  to  make  2,800 
pounds  the  basis  of  payment.  Then  de- 
duct whatever  docks  are  necessary  to 
protect  the  company  against  matter  that 
they  cannot  sell.  The  miners,  of  course, 
are  not  entitled  to  payment  for  matter 
that  cannot  be  marketed,  but  I think  it 
would  be  more  satisfactory  to  all  the 
miners  to  have  the  ton  2,240  pounds.  I 
am  free  to  say  that  the  grievance  may  be 
more  apparent  than  real  with  them,  but 
it  is  everlastingly  there.  They  see  it 
every  day  but  they  are  required  to  mine 
a ton  of  coal  of  2,800  pounds  or  3,100 
pounds,  and  they  cannot  understand  why 
they  must  give  that  much  coal  for  a ton 
when  the  companies  are  selling  the  coal 
always  on  the  basis  of  2,240  pounds.  It 
may  be  that  there  is  not  a great  wrong 
done  the  men  and  on  the  whole,  taking 
them  altogether,  the  man  may  receive 
in  the  agregate  pay  for  all  the  coal  they 
load,  but  the  fact  remains  that  the  man 
who  loads  the  impure  coal  is  paid  a part 
of  the  money  that  ought  to  go  to  the 
man  who  loads  the  pure  coal. 

By  Mr.  Gowan: 

Some  System  Necessary. 

Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  I understand  we  all 
agree  that  no  matter  whether  the  coal  is 
paid  for  by  weight  or  not,  some  system 
of  allowance  must  be  made  to  represent 
the  refuse  which  is  loaded  with  the  coal. 
Under  the  present  system,  an  arbitrary 
figure  of  2,700  or  2,800  pounds  is  estab- 
lished. Under  that  condition,  it  is  as- 
sumed that  a ton  of  2,240  pounds  of  clean 


33 


coal  will  be  produced,  and  that  the  rest 
is  refuse?  A.  That  was  originally  true 

Q.  I may  say  that  is  the  theory  now; 
whether  it  is  in  point  of  fact  true  or  not 
I do  not  ask  you?  A.  Yes,  sir.  vj.  Now, 
if  you  proceed  to  pay  by  the  rate  of  2,240 
pounds,  you  have  still  to  make  some  al- 
lowance for  impurities,  have  you  not?  A. 
For  the  actual  impurities.  Q.  For  the 
actual  impurities?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  are  you  going  to  ascertain 
those  impurities?  A.  Of  course  it  is  going 
to  be  extremely  difficult  to  work  out  a 
scale  as  to  how  much  you  are  doing  to 
dock;  as  to  the  exact  number  of  pounds. 
Q.  I do  not  mean  by  the  exact  number  of 
pounds.  Let  me  put  it  in  this  way.  You 
cannot  inspect  every  coal  car.  That  is 
impossible,  is  it  not?  A.  I should  not 
say  that  it  is  impossible,  but  it  is  impos- 
sible. Q.  But  it  is  impracticable?  A.  It 
may  be. 

Q.  You  have  got  to  arrive,  therefore,  at 
the  average  amount  of  impurities  shipped 
out  during  a given  period  in  order  to 
determine  what  the  average  deduction 
should  be?  A.  As  far  as  it  is  possible  to 
inspect  each  car,  let  that  be  done,  and 
let  the  dock  be  made  upon  the  person 
who  has  loaded  impurities.  If  at  the  end 
of  the  month  it  is  found  that  there  has 
not  been  as  much  coal  mined,  marketable 
coal,  including  all  the  sizes  that  are 
marketed,  because  the  pea  coal  is  as  val- 
uable as  the  larger  sizes,  though  the 
miners  are  not  paid  for  it  at  all — if  at  the 
end  of  the  month  the  company  has  paid 
for  more  coal  of  all  sizes  than  they  have 
sold  or  stocked,  whatever  they  may  do 
with  it,  then  some  arrangement  could  be 
made  where  the  miners  might  have  a cer 
tain  amount  taken  off  of  their  pay  to 
compensate  the  company;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  the  docks  made  during 
the  month  have  been  excessive,  so  that 
the  company  has  sold  more  coal  during 
the  month  that  it  has  paid  for,  then  they 
ought  to  pay  a dividend  to  the  miners. 
That  was  the  system  in  the  Pennsylvania 
company  years  ago.  They  paid  a divi- 
dend at  the  end  of  the  month  or  year,  if 
they  sold  more  coal  than  they  paid  the 
miners  for.  Q.  How  does  that  get  you 
away  from  this  difficulty,  that  when  you 
come  to  average  for  the  amount  of  coai 
which  has  been  shipped,  and  make  cither 
deductions  or  pay  dividends  as  you  sug- 
gest, the  good  miner  is  going  to  suffer  by 
reason  of  the  shortcomings  of  the  care- 
less or  dishonest  miner?  A.  It  would 
minimize  that  very  much,  because  I say 
that  the  docks  should  be  made  as  far  as 
possible  during  the  day,  during  the 
month,  upon  the  men  who  had  loaded 
the  most  impurities,  .and  the  men  who 
did  not  load  them  should  not  bo  docked 
at  all.  So  that,  in  the  end  of  a month, 
there  might  be  a slight  amount  either 
coming  to  the  miners  or  to  be  paid  by 
them,  but  it  would  not  affect  each  one 
very  much.  It  would  minimize  to  the 
very  greatest  degree  the  matter  they 
complain  of. 

An  Interesting-  Colloquy. 

It  was  at  this  juncture  the  members 
of  the  commission  began  their  question- 
ing, alluded  to  above.  The  following  in- 
teresting colloquy  occurred  between 
Commissioner  Watkins  and  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell: 

By  Commissioner  Watkins: 

Q.  You  asked  Mr.  Mitchell  a question 
about  this  organization.  The  answer,  I 
believe,  was  that  it  was  the  purpose  of 
the  organization  to  get  every  mine  work- 


34 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


er  in  the  country  into  the  organization. 
That  was  it.  was  it  not?  A.  I answered 
that  proposition  affirmatively,  that  the 
desire  was  to  have  every  miner  in  the 
United  States  a member  of  our  organiza- 
tion. That  is  not  its  sole  purpose,  how- 
ever. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  possible,  then,  for 
you  to  tie  up  all  the  fuel  interests  of  the 
country?  A.  It  would  hardly  be  possible, 
with  the  proposition  that  is  now  sub- 
mitted to  the  commission.  We  make  an 
annual  contract  in  the  soft  coal  fields. 
This  commission  has  power  to  fix  a con- 
tract for  a longer  period.  That  will  put 
us  in  the  position  that  if  we  had  any  such 
intention  we  could  not  carry  it  out  be- 
cause there  may  be  a contract  here  for 
two  or  three  years,  or  something  like 
that.  The  contract  here  might  expire  in 
October.  It  always  expires  there  in 
April,  so  that  there  is  hardly  a possibil- 
ity of  what  you  have  suggested,  even  if 
we  wanted  to  do  it.  If  it  were  our  in- 
tention, -we  would  not  permit  a contract 
to  be  made  that  would  remove  our  power 
to  do  it. 

Q.  But  that  is  a possible  danger,  is  it 
not,  under  unwise  leadership?  I do  not 
assume  that  you  -would  be  unwise  enough 
to  do  anything  like  that,  but  it  is  one 
of  the  things  that  we  have  to  consider  on 
the  commisison.  I would  like  to  have 
your  views  on  that  subject,  as  to  whether 
it  is  not  possible.  Suppose,  for  instance, 
that  this  commission  gives  a decision  that 
is  satisfactory  for  any  term  of  years, 
limited  to  2,  3,  4 or  5 years,  it  is  possible 
then  for  your  organization  to  force  the 
operators  in  the  bituminous  region  into 
a condition  where  all  the  contracts 
would  terminate  at  a certain  time,  so 
that  they  would  all  terminate  at  the  end 
of  five  years,  if  that  is  the  length  of  time 
fixed  upon  by  our  decision? 

A.  It  is  not  impossible  in  the  sense  that 
it  could  not  be  done,  but  it  is  not  at  all 
probable.  I should  say  that  there  is  no 
possibility  of  its  being  done,  although  it 
would  be  possible  to  do  It. 

Q.  Yes,  That  is  a dangerous  power  to 
place  in  the  hands  of  any  one  organiza- 
tion, without  some  restrictions  in  the 
contracts? 

A Dangerous  Power. 

A.  I should  think  it  would  not  be  a dan- 
gerous power,  because  they  could  do  the 
same  thing  if  they  had  separate  organiza- 
tions. If  there  were  twenty  organizations 
of  American  coal  miners,  they  might  all 
strike  at  the  same  time.  They  could 
make  a coalition,  but  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  larger  and  more  powerful  a labor  or- 
ganization is.  the  more  conservative  and 
safe  it  becomes,  because  it  is  held  to  a 
rigid  accountability  for  its  acts.  A small 
organization  may  escape  public  censure 
for  doing  wrong.  It  may  escape  being 
held  to  an  accountability  for  what  it 
does,  but  an  organization  like  ours  can- 
not. 

Commissioner  Spalding: 

Q.  Could  the  operators  do  the  same 
thing,  Mr.  Mitchell?  Could  they  rorm  a 
coalition  and  stop  the  mining  of  coal 
throughout  the  United  States? 

The  Witness:  They  could  do  it  the 

same  as  we  could.  That  is  especially 
true  right  now  when  the  coal  fields  of  the 
country  are  passing  into  the  hands  of  a 
few  men. 

By  Commissioner  Watkins:  Well,  could 
the  operators  really  do  that?  The  laws 
would  prevent  their  doing  what  your  or- 
ganization could  do.  not  being  incorpor- 
ated. They  would  come  under  the  head 


of  the  monopoly  laws,  and  the  trust  laws, 
and  that  sort  of  thing,  if  they  sought  to 
control  the  fuel  supply  of  the  country, 
while  you  would  not? 

The  Witness:  I do  not  know  any  law 

that  would  prevent  them  from  snuttmg 
down  their  mines.  I mean  there  is  no 
statutory  law  to  prevent  them  from  doing 
it  that  I know  of.  However,  I do  not 
think  it  would  be  possible  in  our  coun- 
try for  that  to  be  done  either  by  a la- 
bor organization  or  by  an  organization 
of  capital. 

The  Chairman:  Does  not  society  de- 

pend, after  all,  on  the  old  economic  prin- 
ciple that  all  the  great  forces  that  tend 
to  uplift  and  carry  on  social  advance- 
ment and  civilization  depend  upon  the 
average  desire  of  individual  man  to  bet- 
ter his  own  condition  and  to  work  for 
wages,  and  for  the  man  who  has  property 
to  utilize  it  and  get  work  from  it.  Isn't 
that  it,  after  all? 

The  Witness:  I think  that  that  princi- 

ple is  true. 

The  Chairman:  If  you  can  imagine  all 

men  ceasing  to  work  at  once,  the  so- 
cial machine  would  stop,  would  it  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman:  Therefore,  does  it  not 

become  exceedingly  important  to  consider 
what  agencies  tend  to  restrict  that  lib- 
eray  of  action? 

A.  Well,  I do  not  know  that  I quite 
grasp  the  point. 

The  Chairman:  I do  not  want  to  go 

back  to  the  discussion  between  you  and 
Mr.  MacVeagh.  which  has  been  so  in- 
teresting and  so  protracted,  as  to  wether 
it  does  not  become  very  important  to 
consider  how  far  any  agencies  are  cal- 
culated to  restrict  that  principle  of  action 
in  achieving  the  individual  desire  of  man 
to  work  to  support  himself,  although  for 
the  purpose  of  contributing,  to  the  com 
mon  -weal,  and  that  of  the  owner  of  prop- 
erty utilizing  it  to  get  an  income  from  it. 
It  is  very  important,  I say,  is  it  not.  to 
consider  how  far  any  agencies  that  are 
in  being  or  possible  should  restrict  that 
liberty. 

Ought  to  Be  Limitations. 

The  Witness:  Well,  I think  that  that  is 
true;  that  there  ought  to  be  limitations 
upon  it,  and  there  is  one  thing  it  wouid 
possibly  be  advisable  to  know  about  our 
labor  movements  in  America,  that  in  the 
very  rare  instances  in  which  they  seek 
to  limit  the  amount  of  physical  energy  a 
man  may  expend  it  is  done  only  by  re- 
stricting the  ho'urs  of  labor  that  he  may 
work.  We  do  not  do  as  they  do  in  Great 
Britain.  The  report  is  probably  very 
much  exaggerated,  but  it  is  charged  that 
the  trade  union  movement  there  has  set 
a limit  as  to  the  number  of  bricks  a man 
may  lay,  the  amount  of  piaster  a man 
may  put  on,  the  number  of  laths  he  would 
nail  to  the  wall,  and  all  such  things  as 
that.  In  our  country  the  trade  union 
movement  does  not  stand  for  such  restric- 
tions. It  asks  restriction  of  the  hours  of 
work,  and  then  not  only  permits  but  ex- 
pects a man  to  work  as  hard  as  he  is 
able.  They  are  not  only  permitted  to  do 
all  the  work  they  can  do  in  the  hours  of 
work,  but  they  are  expected  to  do  so. 

Commissioner  Wright:  To  avoid  recur- 

rence to  this  later  on.  do  you  consider  it 
justifiable  for  the  employers  in  a certain 
industry,  to  resist  the  demands  of  a labor 
union,  to  paralyze  that  industry  or  any 
group  of  industries? 

The  Witness:  No,  I do  not  think  it  is 

proper. 

Commissioner  Wright:  Would  the  same 


answer  be  made  if  I should  substitute 
unions  in  stead  of  employers?  Would  it 
be  justifiable  for  a union  to  paralyze  an 
industry  or  a group  of  industries  in  order 
to  enforce  its  demand? 

The  Witness:  I think  either  side  should 
seek  some  other  avenue  of  adjustment 
than  by  paralyzing  the  industry. 

The  Chairman:  Yes. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  Without  pub- 

lic sympathy,  do  you  think  your  union 
could  maintain  itself? 

The  Witness:  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  No.  Then  if 

you  committed  such  an  act  as  Mr.  Wat- 
kin?  contemplates  in  his  question,  do 
you  think  you  could  continue  to  hold  the 
sympathy  of  the  country? 

The  Witness:  No,  sir;  I think  our 

union  would  immediately  disintegrate. 

By  Commissioner  Watkins:  Q.  The 

thought  occurred  to  me,  in  connection 
with  the  statement  you  made  the  other 
day  that  the  president  of  the  organiza- 
tion has  the  right  to  interpret  any  doubt- 
ful points  in  your  constitution.  That 
gives  to  one  man  a rather  dangerous 
power,  does  it  not?  I am  simply  calling 
your  attention  to  that  thought  which  oc- 
curred to  me. 

Change  of  Buies. 

A.  Yes.  I might  say.  Mr.  Commissioner, 
and  it  may  furnish  information  to  every 
one  here,  that  I expect  to  recommend  to 
our  next  convention  a change  in  our  law; 
not  that  I think  it  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary, but  to  remove  what  appears  to  le 
a reasonable  doubt.  I propose  to  recom- 
mend that  the  miners  of  the  anthracite 
field  cannot  be  called  upon  strike  by  a 
majority  • vote  of  our  national  executive 
board.  In  other  words,  that  we  shall  in- 
vest the  same  atuhority  in  the  thr  e 
members  from  the  anthracite  field  as 
there  is  now  in  the  eighteen  from  the 
bituminous  field,  when  the  question  of  a 
strike  is  to  be  considered,  giving  them 
equal  authority.  I think  that  is  fair,  ard 
it  is  what  would  be  done  anyhow.  It 
would  be  the  policy,  while  it  is  not  a 
law,  and  I propose  to  ask  that  it  be  made 
the  law. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  resistence  to  ti  e 
encroachments  of  your  organization  is 
based  upon  fears  and  doubts  as  to  its 
possible  action  in  the  future,  and  you  also 
know  that  that  is  the  situation  over  a 
large  section  of  the  bituminous  field,  ps 
well  as  the  anthracite  field.  For  instance, 
in  West  Virginia,  I believe,  and  if  you 
could  throw  any  light  on  your  attitude  to- 
wards those  subjects  that  would  prevent 
the  tying  up  of  the  fuel  industries  of  the 
country,  it  would  help  me  personally  as 
a member  of  this  commission,  and  guide 
me  in  my  action.  I simply  call  atten- 
tion to  it.  because  those  thoughts  are  in 
my  mind.  I have  been  an  operator,  and  I 
am  still  interested  in  the  soft  coal  busi- 
ness. I think  the  whole  commission 
should  have  light  on  that  subject,  and  I 
want  it  particularly. 

A.  I think  there  is  no  posslblity  of  the 
entire  coal  industry  being  paralyzed,  al- 
though. under  our  law,  it  is  within  the 
power  of  the  board  to  do  it.  I might  say, 
however,  that  the  executive  board  wi'l 
never  inaugurate  a strike  except  by  tl  e 
vote  of  the  members  themsleves. 

Q.  I do  not  want  to  be  misunderstood. 
You  know  there  are  a large  number  of 
soft  coal  operators  that,  do  not  like  ti  e 
methods  of  some  of  your  leaders  and  or- 
ganizers and  are  still  opposed  to  doing 
any  business  whatever  with  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America.  I speak  of 


that  because,  as  a matter  of  fact,  you 
have  strikes  on  today— at  least,  I have 
not  heard  of  them  being  declared  off— in 
West  Virginia  and  elsewhere.  I believe 
you  have  one  on  with  the  Fairmount 
Coal  company,  from  which  the  Norfolk 
and  Western  railroad  ships  largely? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Number  of  Strikes. 

Q.  And  along  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
railroad;  there  shipments  have  been  re- 
stricted to  fifty  per  cent  this  summer. 
And  in  Western  Pennsylvania,  you  have 
had  quite  a number  of  strikes.  My  ob- 
servation is  that  their  opposition  is  due 
to  the  same  reasons  which  exist  in  the 
anthracite  region;  they  may  misunder- 
stand the  motives,  but  they  do  oppose 
the  encroachments  of  your  organizers. 
One  of  the  reasons  there  is,  they  c'aim, 
you  are  collecting  a fund  to  force  them 
to  these  contracts;  collecting  from  indi- 
viduals working  for  them  a per  centage 
of  their  wages,  sometimes  amounting  to 
three  per  cent.,  out  of  which  the  check 
weighman  is  paid — and  that  may  amount 
to  one-third  of  that  three  per  cent.— and 
the  other  two  per  cent,  going  into  your 
treasury;  that  that  is  for  the  purpose  rf 
raising  a fund  to  fight  them  in  the  fu- 
ture. And  there  are  quite  a number  cf 
other  reasons  that  you  know  of. 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Can  I say  that  we  do  not 
have  that  fund;  we  have  never  had  a 
larger  fund  than  $200,000  in  the  national 
treasury.  At  the  present  time  we  may 
have  considerably  more  than  that,  but 
we  have  not  any  defense  fund — we  have 
no  strike  fund  in  our  organization  at  all. 
When  a strike  is  on,  and  it  becomes  ne- 
cessary to  support  people,  we  levy  assess- 
ments. Only  the  money  in  the  national 
treasury  is  used  for  the  national  pur- 
pose. When  I speak  of  a million  and  a 
half  dollars.  I am  referring  to  the  money 
in  the  treasuries  of  the  districts  and  sub- 
districts and  the  national  treasury,  alto- 
gether. The  amount  held  in  the  national 
treasury  is  usually  about  $100,000. 

By  Commissioner  Watkins; 

Q.  Have  you  or  your  representatives 
prepared  any  data  that  gives  exactly  the 
number  of  days  in  which  the  breakers 
or  mines  work  eight  hours,  seven  hours  or 
ten  hours,  during  the  year  1901,  for  in- 
stance? A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  know  that  there  is  a great  deal 
of  broken  time.  Sometimes  they  work 
Three  hours  and  stop,  owing  to  an  acci- 
dent or  shortage  of  railroad  cars,  and 
that  there  are  unavoidable  things  causing 
them  to  stop,  and  there  are  a great  many 
holidays.  I think  it  would  be  interesting 
for  the  commission  to  know— and  it  bea:  s 
directly  on  this  eight-hour  subject  here— 
as  to  how  many  days  the  employes  work 
during  the  year — three,  four,  five,  sevtn, 
eight,  nine  and  ten  hours.  We  also  know 
lhat  during  the  year  1891  the  collieries 
worked  nearer  up  to  their  full  capacity 
than  ever  before,  that  the  market  took 
more  coal  than  ever  before,  and  that  is 
a fair  year  to  take  as  an  example.  If 
you  restricted  the  output  any  more  than 
last  year  you  would  probably  have  con- 
siderable suffering  to  the  public;  is  net 
that  so?  They  needed  the  coal? 

A.  Yes,  but  they  only  worked  an  aver- 
age of  19G  days  last  year.  You  see,  if 
they  worked  eight-hour  days  they  would 
have  worked  more  than  that. 

Q.  But  the  difficulties  would  still  exist 
with  the  eight-hour  day,  in  the  way  of 
securing  cars  and  accidents  happening, 
and  my  own  opinion  is  that  it  would  be 
interesting  for  you  and  the  commission 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


and  the  other  side  to  know  how  many 
days  were  broken  days,  and  whether  or 
not  the  miners  did  actually  suffer  to  the 
extent  that  it  is  supposed  in  the  state- 
ment that  they  worked  ten  hours  a day. 
My  impression  is  that  they  did  not  work 
ten  hours  very  many  days.  . 

Did  Not  Average  Eight  Hours. 

A.  I agree  with  you.  We  have  not  the 
data  as  to  the  number  of  hours  the 
breakers  ran,  but  I am  in  accord  with 
you  that  a great  many  of  them  did  not 
work  eight  hours,  on  the  average. 

Q.  And  that  they  did  not  work  ten 
hours  many  days?  A.  I think  you  are 
quite  right;  I think  a great  many  com- 
panies did  not  work  ten-hour  days. 

Q.  And  in  making  a change  to  eight 
hours,  the  question  is,  whether  it  would 
not  work  out  an  injustice  to  the  miners? 
That  is  a question  that  comes  up  in  con- 
nection with  that,  and  it  has  occurred 
to  me  that  you  or  your  officials  might 
have  that  information  A.  No,  we  haven’t 
it;  but  the  companies  have  it. 

Mr.  Brownell:  We  will  give  it  to  you. 

By  Commissioner  Clarke: 

Q.  In  those  19G  days  that  they  worked 
during  1901—1  believe  that  it  what  you 
stated?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  Does  that  mean 
19G  days  in  which  they  started  to  work 
and  wor'ked  more  or  less,  or  does  it  mean 
196  full  ten-hour  days?  A.  It  means  195 
full  ten-hour  days  that  they  started. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  I wish  we 

could  have  something  that  would  be 
fairly  representative  of  the  average  con- 
ditions; perhaps  you  could  agree  with 
the  companies  as  to  how  that  would  be 
made  up. 

Mr.  Brownell:  We  have  all  that  data. 

By  Commissioner  Wright: 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  commission  what 
you  mean,  from  a trades  union  point  of 
view,  by  the  recognition  of  the  union? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  The  recognition  of  the  union, 
as  I understand  it,  means  that  the  em- 
ployers shall  make  agreements  regulat- 
ing the  hours  of  labor,  wages,  etc.,  with 
the  unions,  and  that  the  union,  as  such, 
shall  be  held  responsible  for  the  rigid 
compliance  with  that  agreement. 

Q.  That  is  different  from  the  popular 
idea  of  recognition  of  the  union,  is  it 
not?  A.  It  is  very  much  so,  indeed.  It 
also  means  that  employes  shall  select 
whomever  they  choose  to  represent  them 
in  their  meetings — that  they  shall  exer- 
cise their  own  judgment  about  it.  The 
unions  themselves  prefer  that  adjust- 
ments should  take  place  between  the  em- 
ployes themselves  and  .the  companies,  if 
that  can  be  done,  that  the  actual  em- 
ployes will  adjust  grievances;  but  where 
they  cannot  do  it,  rather  than  strike,  we 
prefer  the  officials  of  the  unions  going  in 
and  adjusting  the  differences.  Q.  That  is 
what  you  mean  by  recognition,  from  the 
trades  union  point  of  view.  A.  Yes,  sir. 

For  Disciplining  Members. 

Q.  Another  matter.  Are  there  any  pro- 
visions in  your  constitution  and  by-laws 
for  the  discipline  of  your  members  for 
any  acts  which  individual  members  may 
commit?  A.  The  constitution  itself  has 
not  got  that  provision;  we  may  have 
those  in  the  agreements — our  district 
agreements  may  have  them  in  some 
places.  I am  not  so  well  acquainted  with 
that  feature;  but  our  local  unions  disci- 
pline their  individaul  members — they  i\ave 
that  power.  They  may  expel  their  mem- 
bers from  membership.  Q.  For  acts  com- 
mitted outside  of  the  union?  A.  Yes, 


35 


acts  that  would  be  contrary  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  union. 

Q.  Any  acts  of  violence  or  anything  of 
that  kind.  A.  They  could  do  so.  There 
are  several  cases  I have  in  mind  now 
that  occurred  during  this  strike;  for  in- 
stance, the  unfortunate  murder  of  this 
man,  Sweeney.  All  our  local  unions  held 
meetings  and  denounced  that  in  the 
strongest  terms;  denounced  those  acts. 
At  Shenandoah,  when  Biddle  was  killed, 
our  unions  held  meetings  and  denounced 
it,  and  they  have  done  everything  in 
their  power  agaist  such  acts.  They  could 
not  do  more  than  express  their  condemna- 
tion, of  course,  which  they  did;  and 
that  has  been  true  of  our  unions  in  many 
other  places.  They  have  done  everything 
in  their  power  to  prevent  lawlessness  and 
have  condemned  it,  wherever  it  has  oc- 
curred. 

The  Chairman:  Do  your  officials  report 
to  the  organization  or  its  executive  com- 
mittee acts  of  violence  that  are  detrimen- 
tal to  the  reputation  and  good  order  of 
your  organization? 

The  Witness:  During  this  strike  we 
had  peace  committees  at  one  time  to  try 
to  keep  order,  to  at  times  to  protect 
property.  Where  acts  of  lawlessness 
were  permitted  they  were  usually,  many 
times,  reported  to  the  committee  or  local 
executive  boards;  generally  it  was 
through  the  papers,  I will  say. 

By  Commissioner  Wright: 

Q.  Will  you  explain  to  the  commission 
what  your  view  is,  from  a trade  union 
point,  of  the  black-list  and  the  boycott; 
what  is  the  difference? 

A.  There  is  practically  no  difference; 
they  are  the  same  weapon.  If  anything, 
the  black-list  is  the  more  baneful.  I do 
not  know  whether  the  black-list  is  used 
new  in  the  anthracite  fields,  but  many 
of  the  miners  believe  it  has  been  and 
believe  it  is.  If  a man  loses  his  job  in 
one  mine  he  may  hunt  all  over  the  an- 
thracite region  for  another  job  and  be 
unable  to  get  one,  without  any  reasons 
being  assigned  by  those  from  whom  he 
seeks  employment.  He  is  not  told  that 
there  is  anything  against  him,  but  he  is 
unable  to  get  work.  Many  years  ago  that 
was  true  in  the  entire  coal  industry,  from 
one  end  of  the.  country  to  the  other.  A 
man  might  go  all  over  the  country  hunt- 
ing for  wmrk  in  the  coal  fields  and  would 
not  be  able  to  get  it.  I do  not  think 
that  that  is  so  now,  and  I do  not  think 
that  has  been  done  to  any  extent  in  the 
anthracite  field  during  recent  years. 

Q.  You  condemn  both  the  boycott  and 
the  black-list,  do  you?  A.  Yes,  sir,  I do; 
except  as  I modify  the  boycott  to  where 
it  is  legal  and  lawful. 

Mr.  Gowan  then  brought  out  the  dec- 
laration of  Mr.  Mitchell,  made  at  the 
time  of  the  last  Indianapolis  conven- 
tion, in  which  the  miners’  president 
spoke  in  apprehensive  tones  of  the 
dread  possibility  of  all  the  miners 
quitting  work. 

In  discussing  the  Hazleton  conven- 
tion, which  called  the  strike,  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell denied  that  he  opposed  a strike,  but 
only  the  time  of  calling  it.  He  said  he 
favored  a strike  this  year.  The  vote 
against  him  was  in  the  proportion  of 
about  60  to  40,  he  said. 

Mr.  Go-wan  brought  his  examination 
to  a close  at  12.25,  and  then  Mr.  Ross 
took  up  the  case  for  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company. 


36 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Examined  by  Mr.  Ross. 

Mr.  Ross  began  the  proceedings  with 
an  inquiry  into  conditions  in  the  Illi- 
nois coal  fields,  with  a view  of  show- 
ing that  the  conditions  here  are  com- 
paratively good.  Mr.  Ross  is  closely 
interested  in  some  Illinois  coal  oper- 
ations, and  consequently  in  a position 
to  ask  some  very  particular  questions. 

In  response  to  Mr.  Ross’  questions, 
Mr.  Mitchell  told  in  detail  of  the  work, 
■wages  and  other  conditions  in  the  dif- 
ferent Illinois  fields.  The  witness  ad- 
mitted he  worked  steadily  for  about 
eight  hours,  when  he  worked  in  the 
mines  prior  to  1897.  He  usually,  with 
his  partner,  loaded  ten  tons  or  more. 
He  went  to  work  at  7 o’clock  in  the 
morning  and  worked  until  about  3 
o’clock  in  the  afternoon.  His  earnings 
were  about  $3  a day.  The  same  work, 
he  said,  would  now  bring  him  $6  a day. 
His  highest  earnings  for  a year  were 
about  $750.  In  the  Illinois  field  two 
miners  work  together  as  “butties”  and 
divide  their  earnings  equally. 

Taking  up  the  work  in  the  anthracite 
region,  Mr.  Ross  inquired  as  to  the 
number  of  hours  worked  by  contract 
miners.  Mr.  Mitchell  declared  they 
work  seven,  eight  and  nine  hours,  ac- 
cording to  how  long  the  breaker  ran. 
Sometimes  they  work  fourteen  hours. 
On  the  average,  they  work  longer  than 
the  breaker. 

The  witness  admitted  that  in  District 
No.  1 there  is  a local  rule  of  the  union 
forbidding  miners  from  working  on 
days  when  the  breaker  is  idle,  and  ex- 
plained that  this  was  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  favored  miners  from 
making  extra  money  at  the  expense  of 
those  who  were  not  favored. 

The  new  management  of  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  com- 
pany, Mr.  Mitchell  said,  had  done  much 
to  help  destroy  this  system  of  favorit- 
ism. 

The  witness  could  give  no  specific  in- 
stances of  excessive  dockage,  of  chil- 
dren being  forced  into  the  breaker,  or 
any  of  the  other  ills  complained  of,  as 
far  as  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  collieries  were  concerned.  He 
said  other  witnesses  would  tell  of  those 
things,  if  they  existed. 

No  Company  Stores. 

Mr.  Ross  brought  out  the  fact  that 
his  company  has  no  company  stores 
and  only  280  company  houses,  the  aver- 
age rental  of  which  is  $5  a month;  also 
that  1,695  of  the  mine  employes  own 
their  own  homes.  Mr.  Mitchell  re- 
marked that  very  likely  they  were  cov- 
ered with  mortgages. 

By  Mr.  Ross:  Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  you 

have  given  us  a reason  why  we  should 
increase  the  rate  of  wages  to  our  miners, 
that  “the  wages  of  the  anthracite  mine 
workers  are  so  low  that  their  children 
are  prematurely  forced  into  the  break- 
ers and  mills  instead  of  being  supnorted 
and  educated  upon  the  earnings  of  their 
parents."  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  cite  to  me  any  specific  in- 
stance of  that  kind  among  our  employes? 
A.  Yes,  sir,  your  breakers  are  full  of  lit- 
tle bits  of  boys,  and  the  rqills  around  here 


have  got  many  little  girls  working  in 
them  who  are  children  of  your  employes. 

Q.  Are  they  forced  in  there  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  their  parents  cannot 
make  sufficient  wages  to  prevent  them 
from  doing  that?  A.  I can  imagine  no 
other  reason  that  would  induce  any  par- 
ent to  send  his  little  children  to  work  in- 
stead of  to  school,  except  that  they  re- 
quire the  money  to  live  upon,  except  in 
rare  instances  where  parents  may  be  in- 
human. 

Q.  I wish,  Mr.  Mitchell,  if  you  can, 
before  this  hearing  is  over,  you  would 
cite  some  specific  instance  where  our 
employes,  by  reason  of  their  inadequate 
wages,  are  required  to  force  their  chil- 
dren into  the  mills  or  into  the  breakers. 
I am  interested  with  you.  I think  equally, 
in  improving  the  conditions  of  our  em- 
ployes, and  if  you  can  cite  any  instance 
of  that  kind,  I want  to  assure  you  that 
we  will  do  the  best  we  can  to  remedy  the 
conditions  and  bring  that  about. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Mitchell,  do  you  take  the 
position  before  the  commission  that  the 
miners’  helpers  are  entitled  to  as  high 
earnings  as  the  miners  themselves?  A. 
No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Q.  Why  not?  What  is  your  reason  for 
that?  A.  They  do  not  require  the  skill 
that  the  miners  do.  They  have  not  the 
responsibility  that  the  miners  have  and 
they  do  not  require  the  degree  of  training 
that  the  miners  do.  Those  are  reasons 
why  the  wages  should  not  necessarily  be 
as  high. 

Q.  As  a matter  of  fact,  they  are  mere 
apprentices,  are  they  not?  A.  Well,  they 
are  laborers. 

Are  on  the  Way. 

Q.  What  is  that?  A.  They  are  laborers. 
I do  not  know  that  they  are  apprentices, 
although  they  are  on  their  way  to  the 
goal  where  they  finally  get  to  be  con- 
tract miners. 

Q.  Yes,  and  is  it  not  a fact  that  very 
few  helpers  work  as  helpers,  after  they 
have  been  working  in  that  capacity  for 
two  years?  A.  I presume  that  most  of 
them  try  to  get  a certificate  and  become 
a skilled  miner. 

Q.  As  a matter  of  fact,  they  do,  in  this 
territory,  do  they  not?  That  is,  in  pros- 
perous times  like  these,  when  there  is  a 
’demand  for  coal?  A.  Thirty-six  thousand 
miners  have  managed  during  the  last  fif- 
teen years  to  get  to  be  contract  miners. 

Q.  Coming  down  to  your  second  de- 
mand. Mr.  Mitchell,  I want  to  see  if  I 
understand  that  right.  I take  it.  that 
your  meaning  is  that  the  hours  of  labor 
should  be  reduced  from  ten  to  eight 
hours,  and  the  result  of  this  is  an  in- 
crease in  the  rate  of  wages,  by  the  eight- 
hour  day.  Is  that  the  final  conclusion 
of  that  demand?  A.  That  is  what  would 
be  the  result;  yes,  sir.  It  comes  down 
to  an  increase  of  20  per  cent. 

Q.  I believe  it  amounts  to  an  increase  of 
25  per  cent,  when  actually  worked  out. 

Q.  Twenty-five  per  cent.  A.  Provided 
there  was  not  an  increase  in  the  intensity 
of  work  which  would  surely  follow.  It 
would  not  amount  to  as  much  as  a 20  per 
cent,  increase  to  the  companies,  likely. 
Q.  And  by  making  that  change,  grant- 
ing this  demand  which  you  made,  the  in- 
crease in  wages  would  be  25  per  cent., 
and  the  output,  that  is  the  production, 
would  be  how  much?  Twenty-five  per 
cent.?  A.  I should  say  not.  I do  not 
think  that  it  would  decrease  your  annual 
production  at  all. 

Q.  Why  not?  A.  Because  you  do  not 
work  an  average  of  eight  hours  a day  for 


all  the  working  days  there  are  in  tne 
year  now. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  how  many  hours 
we  do  work?  A.  I have  some  data  upon 
it,  but  I have  not  got  it  right  here. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  is  a fair  demand, 
a reduction  from  ten  to  eight  hours?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  we  wTould  not  make  it  otherwise. 

Q.  That  means  that  It  is  fair  for  the 
miners  to  work,  all  of  them,  eight  hours 
a day,  for  six  days  in  the  week?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Question  of  Earnings. 

Q.  If  the  rate  of  wages  paid  to  the 
miner  for  mining  a car  of  coal  was  fair 
you  would  not  be  making  this  demand  for 
paying  by  weight,  would  you?  If  the 
miner  was  paid  a sufficient  rate  of  wages 
for  mining  each  car,  so  that  his  earnings 
would  be  reasonable  during  the  year, 
then  you  would  not  make  this  demand 
for  a change  from  paying  him  by  the  car 
to  paying  him  by  the  ton?  A.  Of  course, 
into  the  whole  thing  enters  the  question 
of  earnings;  but,  nevertheless — 

Q.  As  you  said  before,  this  third  de- 
mand is  really  a part  of  the  first  demand. 
When  you  get  down  to  the  last  analysis 
of  this  proposition  is  not  it  the  fact  that 
you  hope  and  expect  by  getting  the  com- 
mission to  order  a change  in  this  respect 
to  obtain  for  the  miners  a higher  rate  of 
wages  than  you  demand  in  your  first  de- 
mand, is  not  that  it?  A.  No,  that  is  not 
my  purpose,  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  the 
miners.  We  ask  for  20  per  cent,  in- 
crease in  the  prices  now  paid.  When  we 
say  that  we  do  not  mean  25  or  30  or  50 
per  cent,  of  the  prices  now  paid,  that 
cannot  be  misunderstood. 

Q.  Then,  you  would  figure  out  the 
equivalent  price  per  ton  on  the  car  basis? 
A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  In  other  words,  we  would  have  to 
go  through  every  mine,  every  vein,  and 
readjust  our  prices  from  a car  basis  to  a 
ton  basis.  Mr.  Mitchell,  do  you  not 
think  that  that  of  itself  would  cause 
great  dissatisfaction  and  great  confusion, 
after  this  custom  has  been  in  force  so 
long  and  the  miners  are  so  familiar  with 
it  and  have  been  familiar  with  it  for  so 
many  years— some  of  them  for  fifty 
years?  A.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  is 
the  miners  that  are  demanding  the 
change? 

Q.  I want  to  say  that  at  our  mines  we 
pay  entirely  on  the  car  basis;  but  as- 
suming that  this  commission  should  find 
that  the  rate  of  wages  we  pay  our  men 
is  fair,  would  you  still  insist  that  they 
should  pay  the  miners  by  the  ton  instead 
of  by  the  car,  having  in  mind  this  propo- 
sition; that  if  the  miners  are  dissatisfied 
with  the  method  of  docking  that  they 
could  appoint  their  own  dock-master,  the 
same  as  they  appoint  their  own  weigh- 
master,  and  let  him  be  present  with  our 
man  who  does  the  docking  and  agree 
upon  it?  Could  not  that  be  done  iust  as 
well,  and  would  not  that  meet  the  prin- 
cipal objection  which  you  have  inter- 
posed up  to  this  time  to  this  system,  and 
would  not  that  save  this  company  many 
thousands  of  dollars  in  reconstructing  its 
plants? 

Check  Docking  Boss. 

A.  Well,  I do  not  know  that  that  would 
eliminate  the  objections  to  it— the  priv- 
ilege of  having  a check  docking  boss 
there  to  see  that  the  men  are  not  pun- 
ished wrongfully.  As  I have  said  before, 
our  other  witnesses  know  the  history  of 
this  car.  We  believe  we  have  been  forced 
to  load  a larger  car  without  an  increase 


of  pay.  and  that  has  amounted  to  a re- 
duction in  wages.  Now,  we  want  that  re- 
stored. 

Q.  Would  not  that  amount  to  this,  Mr. 
Mitchell? — that  if  the  miners  are  not  be- 
ing paid,  if  they  are  not  being  paid  for 
the  same  sized  car  that  they  were,  that 
they  are  not  receiving  an  adequate  wage; 
and  if  the  commission  finds  that  they  are 
receiving  an  adequate  wage,  then  what 
would  you  say  as  to  this  other  sugges- 
tion I have  made  as  to  our  changing  our 
system  to  pay  by  the  ton  instead  of  by 
the  car? 

A.  We  ask  that  the  coal  be  weighed, 
because  that  is  the  only  satisfactory 
method  of  determining  the  earnings  of 
the  men.  It  certainly  has  compensating 
features  to  you.  It  is  said  that  miners 
crib  their  cars.  If  they  do  that,  and  the 
coal  car  is  dumped,  and  you  pay  for  a 
box  of  coal  when  it  has  been  cribbed, 
the  miners  are  being  disnonest  with  the 
company.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  a 
car  breaks  down  en  route  the  companies 
feel  disposed  to  dock  the  miner,  which  is 
wrong. 

A statement  prepared  by  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  com- 
pany was  presented  showing  that  in  a 
canvass  of  the  employees  of  five  col- 
lieries it  was  found  that  the  employees 
owned  $802,040  worth  of  property,  ex- 
clusive of  mortgages.  It  showed  one 
miner  who  was  the  owner  of  $40,000 
worth  of  property,  and  a number  own- 
ing upwards  of  $10,000  worth. 

“That  $40,000  man”  remarked  Mr. 
Mitchell,  “must  have  been  one  of  those 
who  mined  the  miners.” 

Mr.  Ross  said  the  man  in  question 
would  be  brought  in  to  testify. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

Commissioner  Watkins  began  ques- 
tioning Mr.  Ross  about  the  statement, 
whereupon  Attorney  James  L.  Lenahan 
one  of  the  miners’  counsel,  made  ob- 
jection to  the  answers  of  Mr.  Ross 
going  on  record,  because  he  had  not 
been  sworn  and  should  not  give  testi- 
money.  After  some  discussion  Judge 
Gray  closed  the  incident  with  the  re- 
mark that  the  commission  would  try 
not  to  be  misled  by  any  irregular  testi- 
mony. Turning  to  Mr.  Ross,  the  chair- 
man said:  “I  suppose  if  you  want  to 
get  those  matters  before  us  you  can 
present  them  as  some  have  done  by 
asking  the  witness  if  he  would  be  sur- 
prised to  know  whatever  its  contents 
set  forth.” 

The  laugh  following  this  had  hardly 
died  away  when  Mr.  Mitchell  produced 
another  by  saying:  "You  can  take  it 

for  granted  I won’t  be  surprised  at 
anything  you  may  read  from  that 
paper.” 

By  use  of  the  interrogative  “would 
you  be  surprised  etc.?”  Mr.  Ross  set 
forth  that  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  mines  worked  203  ten 
hour  days  in  1901;  that  the  breakers 
averaged  260  days;  that  the,  company 
hands  averaged  7 8-10  hours  a day  and 
the  miners  only  5 1-10  hours,  and  that 
the  average  earnings  of  the  contract 
miners  was  $628.56. 

Mr.  Ross  took  occasion  to  say  in 
dealing  with  the  restriction  of  output 
that  would  result  from  an  eight-hour 
day,  that  his  company  for  several 
years  past  has  been  unable  to  get  coal 


37 

enough  to  fill  its  orders.  Mr.  Mitchell 
provoked  general  laughter  by  saying 
President  Truesdale  had  told  him  just 
the  opposite;  that  the  company’s 
market  was  being  encrouched  upon  by 
soft  coal. 

Mr.  Mitchell  stated  in  response  to 
questions  by  Mr.  Ross  that  he  worked 
twelve  or  thirteen  hours  a day  and  his 
stenographers  about  the  same  number 
of  hours,  just  at  present,  but  except  in 
emergencies  they  never  worked  more 
than  eight  hours. 

After  stating  that  payment  by 
measure  had  been  in  vogue  in  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  mines 
for  over  fifty  years,  and  that  the  miners 
were  satisfied  with  it,  Mr.  Ross  asked 
Mr.  Mitchell  why  his  company  should 
be  put  to  the  great  expense  of  altering 
their  plants  so  as  to  weigh  coal.  Mr. 
Mitchell  declared  the  miners  wanted 
payment  by  weight  and  then  went  on 
to  explain,  why,  in  substantially  the 
same  manner  he  had  before  explained 
it. 

Speaking  of  dockage  Mr.  Ross  re- 
ferred to  the  public  declaration  of  Mr. 
Mitchell  that  miners  were  docked  12  or 
15  per  cent  and  then  asked  him  if  he 
“would  be  surprised”  to  know  that  it 
was  as  low  as  eight-tenths  of  one  per 
cent,  at  one  of  the  Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  collieries.  Mr. 
Mitchell  said  he  was  sure  .that  was  not 
the  average.  He  understood  the  aver- 
age at  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  mines  was  three  or  four  per 
cent. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Nov.  19. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  20.] 


After  being  on  the  witness  stand  for 
ne'arly  five  days  before  the  strike  com- 
mission, answering  the  questions  of  ten 
lawyers  and  the  seven  commissioners, 
John  Mitchell,  the  miners’  representa- 
tive, was  relieved  at  noon,  yesterday, 
and  the  examination  of  the  second  wit- 
ness for  the  miners’  side,  Rev.  Peter 
Roberts,  Ph.  D.,  was  begun. 

Mr.  Mitchell  might  have  been  under 
fire  for  several  days  more  had  not  the 
commission  come  to  his  rescue.  Not 
less  than  half  a dozen  times  Tuesday 
and  yesterday  morning.  Chairman  Gray 
intimated  very  strongly  to  the  cross- 
examiners that  the  commission  was 
quite  satisfied  that  it  had  gained  from 
the  witness  about  all  the  information 
they  could  bring  out  from  him  that 
would  be  of  use  in  the  investigation  in 
hand,  and  that  unless  there  was  some- 
thing new  to  suggest  as  a line  of  exam- 
ination, it  would  be  well  to  end  the  dis- 
cussion of  generalities  and  proceed  to 
get  at  the  specific  and  detailed  informa- 
tion that  might  come  from  the  anthra- 
cite miners  themselves.  This  had  the 
effect  of  abbreviating  the  cross-examin- 
ations. Mr.  Wolverton,  who  represents 
the  reading  company,  finished  with  the 
witness  in  about  five  minutes. 

As  Mr,  Mitchell  was  leaving  the  stand 


Chairman  Gray  thanked  him  cordially 
in  the  name  of  the  commission  for  his 
assistance. 

Dr.  Roberts  on  the  Stand. 

Rev.  Dr.  Roberts,  the  second  witness, 
is  pastor  of  the  Congregational  church 
in  Mahonoy  City,  and  formerly  pastor 
of  the  Plymouth  Congregational  church. 
West  Scranton,  and  the  Olyphant  Con- 
gregational church.  He  came  into  the 
hearing  mainly  through  his  authorship, 
of  a book  on  the  anthracite  region,  pub- 
lished in  1901.  For  the  past  three  weeks 
he  has  been  at  the  Mine  Workers’  head- 
quarters in  Wilkes-Barre,  assisting  in 
the  preparation  of  the  miners’  case. 

“O,  that  mine  enemy  would  write  a 
book!”  was  brought  forcibly  to  mind 
by  Mr.  Wolverton’s  cross-examination 
of  Dr.  Roberts.  The  attorney  had  care- 
fully read  the  doctor’s  work  and  noted 
numerous  statements  corroborative  of 
the  operators’  contentions.  These  were 
read  to  the  witness  to  the  accompani- 
ment of  enquiries  as  to  whether  or  not 
he  believed  them  to  be  true.  The  au- 
thor, of  course,  had  to  admit  his  belief 
in  their  truth.  Mr.  Wolverton  took  es- 
pecial pains  to  have  the  witness  affirm 
a passage  rather  severely  criticizing 
English-speaking  miners  for  refusing, 


through  indolence,  to  work  more  than 
five  hours  a day. 

A difficulty,  of  no  mean  proportions, 
with  which  the  commission  will  have  to 
contend,  was  brought  up  by  Ira  H. 
Burns,  of  this  city,  one  of  the  counsel 
for  the  independent  operators. 

It  is  the  jurisdiction  of  the  commis- 
sion, under  the  terms  of  the  proposition 
under  which  it  was  created,  to  decree 
whether  or  not  an  agreement  shall  be 
made  with  the  miners’  union.  The  com- 
panies’ offer  explicitly  provided  that 
the  agreement  should  be  between  them 
and  their  own  employes,  and  in  their 
answers  to  the  Mitchell  statement,  one 
and  all  declared  “this  subject  was  ex- 
cluded from  consideration  by  the  terms 
of  the  submission  under  which  the  com- 
mission was  appointed,”  to  use  the 
words  of  one  of  the  answers. 

Principal  Reason. 

The  principal  reason  assigned  by  the 
operators  for  their  refusal  to  have  any 
dealings  with  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers is  that  the  organization  is  made  up 
principally  of  bituminous  men.  In  the 
answer  of  the  Reading  company,  Presi- 
dent Baer,  in  a sort  of  aside,  says  if 
the  anthracite  miners  would  form  a 
union  of  their  own,  his  company  would 


38 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


take  up  the  matter  of  making  a work--" 
ing  agreement  with  it.  In  answer  to  a 
question  by  Attorney  Wolverton,  of  the 
Reading,  yesterday,  President  Mitchell 
declared  emphatically  that  a separate 
anthracite  union  was  neither  desirable 
nor  possible. 

Despite  this  situation,  the  half  of 
President  Mitchell’s  opening  address  to 
the  commission  dealt  with  the  wisdom 
and  expediency  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  being  recognized,  and  the 
major  part  of  the  efforts  of  the  oper- 
ators’ attorneys  during  the  past  five 
days  has  been  to  show  the  contrary  in 
this  respect. 

Since  the  hearings  began  five  days 
ago,  no  one  has  either  claimed  or  de- 
nied directly,  or  by  other  inference 
than  mentioned  above,  that  the  ques- 
tion of  recognition  is  before  the  com- 
mission. Yesterday,  however,  Mr.  Burns, 
whose  clients,  the  independent  oper- 
ators, did  not  declare  in  their  answer 
that  the  question  of  recognition  wras  or 
was  not  before  the  commission,  pro- 
ceeded to  a discussion  with  the  com- 
missioners. of  the  right  of  employers  to 
retain  men  who  worked  during  the 
strike,  and  to  hire  non-union  men  in 
the  future,  providing  the  commission 
grants  the  fourth  demand  of  the  miners 
that  the  union  be  recognized. 

Judge  Gray  consulted  the  other  com- 
missioners for  a time,  and  then  an- 
nounced that  according  to  the  com- 
missioners’ reading  of  the  submission 
agreement,  the  “non-striking”  miners 
were  not  to  be  displaced.  tie  made 
some  other  comments,  but  religiously 
avoided  saying  anything  that  would  in- 
dicate how  the  commissioners  view  this 
delicate  question  of  their  jurisdiction. 

Did  Not  Press  Them. 

Mr.  Burns  did  not  press  the  commis- 
sion for  a specific  expression  of  their 
position  on  the  really  momentous  ques- 
tion but  turned  aside  to  a discussion 
of  the  contingent  question  of  how  the 
non-union  man  was  to  be  dealt  with  “if 
an  agreement”  was  made. 

Mr.  Mitchell  was  brought  into  the 
discussion  by  a question  from  Mr. 
Burns  as  to  what  vested  or  other  right, 
if  any,  a miner  had  in  his  “job.”  Mr. 
Mitchell  said  the  miner  legally  had  no 
claim  on  his  job,  but  morally  he  had  a 
right  to  be  given  back  his  place,  after 
the  strike  was  over,  considering  the 
manner  in  which  it  was  ended. 

Chairman  Gray  suggested  that  as  the 
operators’  proposition  contained  a con- 
dition precedent  that  the  “men  should 
return  to  work  immediately,”  it  was  to 
be  gathered  that  they  should  have 
work  to  go  back  to.  Later,  the  chair- 
man took  occasion  to  qualify  this  by 
saying  the  non-union  men  were  not  to 
be  displaced. 

Mr.  Mitchell  denied  that  the  union 
was  demanding  that  any  non-union  or 
non-striking  men  should  be  discharged. 
The  companies  should,  if  it  wants  to 
provide  for  them,  move  them  into  the 
places  deserted  by  the  thousands  of 
men  who  left  the  region  and  do  not 


propose  to  come  back.  Then  the  old 
men  could  have  their  old  places. 

That  the  commissioners  were  some- 
what impressed  wfith  the  list  of  strike 
“violences”  and  have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that,  even  now,  the  non-union 
man  is  none  too  secure  in  his  “life  lib- 
erty and  pursuit  of  happiness”  is  to  be 
inferred  from  some  apprehensions  iter- 
ated and  reiterated  by  Chairman  Gray, 
when  he  announced  that  the  commis- 
sioners could  not  comply  with  the  re- 
quest of  Attorneys  Lenahan  and  O’Bri- 
en that  the  names  of  their  clients,  some 
2,000  non-unionists,  be  not  made  public. 

Some  of  the  Remarks. 

Some  of  his  remarks  were:  “I  take 

it  the  use  of  the  best  of  names  will 
be  exercised  in  all  fairness  on  both 
sides.”  * * * “We,  of  course,  rely 
upon  the  discretion  of  counsel  that  no 
unfair  use  shall  be  made  of  those 
names,  or  that  they  be  subjected  to 
trouble,  reproach  or  anything  of  that 
kind.”  * * * “Otherwise,  the  com- 
missioners would  feel  they  had  been  a 
party  to  reflecting  upon  innocent  peo- 
ple through  this  means,  and  subjecting 
them  to  injustice.”  * * * “We  have 
felt  the  importance  of  the  suggestion 
that  the  names  be  kept  secret.”  * * * 
“We  would  feel  very  much  the  respon- 
sibility if  any  harm  should  come  to 
these  men  by  reason  of  the  disclosure.” 
* * * “That  does  not  relieve  us, 

though,  from  the  feeling  of  anxiety  and 
the  hope  that  there  shall  come  no 
harm  to  any  person  in  any  way  from 
anything  that  is  done  before  the  com- 
mission.” 

The  day  opened  with  Mr.  Mitchell  on 
the  stand,  under  cross-examination  by 
Mr.  Ross,  general  counsel  of  the  Del- 
aware, Lackawanna  and  Western  com- 
pany. Simon  P.  Wolverton,  counsel  for 
the  Philadelphia  and  Reading  Coal  and 
Iron  company,  and  James  H.  Torrey, 
of  counsel  for  the  Delaware  and  Hud- 
son company,  and  I.  H.  Burns,  for  the 
Independent  operators,  followed  Mr. 
Ross  as  cross-examiners,  and  when  Mr. 
Mitchell  was  turned  over  for  re'-direct 
examination  by  Mr.  Darrow.  The 
morning  session  was  about  concluded 
when  Rev.  Dr.  Roberts  took  the  stand. 

Recognition  Incident. 

The  “recognition”  incident  was  in- 
jected by  Mr.  Burns  just  before  Mr. 
Mitchell  was  turned  over  to  Mr.  Darrow 
for  re-direct  examination.  The  discus- 
sion was  as  follows: 

Mr.  Burns:  If  the  court  please,  I do 
not  desire  to  interrogate  the  witness  to 
any  extent,  but  I should  like  to  know 
from  the  commission  as  to  whether  they 
intend  in  tf.tlr  finding  to  make  one  gen- 
eral sweeping  finding  in  regard  to  all 
classes  of  operators,  or  whether  they 
take  notice  of  the  distinctions  between 
the  individual  operators  and  what  we 
call  the  big  company. 

Of  course,  I think  the  commission  un- 
derstand, in  a general  way,  that  the  in- 
dividual operators  are  under  somewhat 
different  conditions  from  the  railroad 
companies.  The  cream  of  the  coal  lands 
of  the  whole  valley  and  the  whole  an- 


thracite region  were  long  ago  absorbed 
by  the  large  corporations.  The  few  indi- 
vidual operators  that  are  left  are  mining 
poor  territory,  and,  in  some  cases,  are 
taking  mines  that  have  been  virtually 
mined  out  by  the  large  companies  and 
are  stripping  them.  Of  course,  they  have 
a certain  line  of  fixed  charges,  and  they 
have  no  means  to  reimburse  themselves 
by  profits  on  railroads  or  other  enter- 
prises. They  depend  solely  and  entirely 
on  what  they  get  from  their  particu'ar 
mines,  and,  of  course,  as  a general  thing, 
they  do  not  own  the  land.  They  pay  a 
royalty  for  the  coal  that  they  get  out. 
Now.  suppose  an  individual  operator  has 
a hundred  acres  of  land  where  the  veins 
are  thin,  because  the  thick  veins  were 
long  ago  absorbed,  and  the  thin  veins  are 
more  difficult  to  mine.  He  has  really  to 
pay  more  for  getting  out  a ton  of  coal 
than  the  other  companies.  Now,  he  has 
certain  fixed  charges.  He  has  his  royal- 
ties; he  has  the  interest  on  his  capital 
invested,  which  amounts  to  a large  sum, 
and  he  has  to  build  a breaker  before 
he  can  do  anything  at  all.  Then  the 
pumping  and  ventilation  of  the  mines, 
the  feeding  of  the  mules,  the  runners  of 
machinery.  the  depreciation  of  the 
breaker — all  these  are  fixed  charges 
which  run  along  coptinuously.  whether  he 
works  or  not.  Therefore,  it  can  be  easily 
seen  that  a strike  lasting  long  enough 
could  completely  do  up  an  individual 
operator.  He  has  no  railroad  by  which 
he  can  pay  his  running  expenses.  Also, 
I would  say,  that  they  employ  or  have 
employed  a greater  or  less  number  of 
non-union  miners. 

About  Non-union  Men. 

Now,  I do  not  understand,  and  I have 
not  been  informed  from  any  of  the  ques- 
tions that  have  been  asked  the  witness 
before  the  court,  as  to  whether,  if  any 
contract  is  made,  or  if  this  commission 
should  find  it  proper  to  suggest  or  recom- 
mend or  find  that  contracts  should  be 
made  with  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  whether  they  would  insist,  as  it 
seems  they  do  in  Illinois,  that  no  non- 
union men  should  be  employed,  or 
whether  they  propose  to  make  contracts 
with  us  simply  for  the  union  men  that 
we  employ,  and  leave  us  free  as  hereto- 
fore to  employ  non-union  men. 

I do  not  know  whether  the  commission 
undrestand  these  questions  or  not.  and 
we  certainly  are  not  informed  as  to  the 
extent  that  the  commission  would  go  if  it 
had  the  power.  It  seems  to  us  that  in 
this  hearing  there  really  ought  to  be 
some  rule  in  regard  to  it.  Here  the  big 
corporations  have  had  four  or  five  days, 
and  the  commission  is  tired.  We  can  see 
at  once  that  its  members  have  been 
wearied:  and.  although  we  might  ask 
Mr.  'Mitchell  some  questions  peculiarly 
pertaining  to  our  workings,  we  do  not 
care  to  keep  the  commission  sitting  here 
when  they  evidently  do  not  want  to. 
They  want  to  go  on  to  other  witnesses: 
but  it  does  seem  to  us  that  as  to  any 
future  witnesses  that  are  called  we  ought 
to  have  some  privilege,  some  designated 
time  or  opportunity  afforded  us  to  exam- 
ine them  when  questions  are  arising 
which  are  different  with  us  than  they 
are  with  the  others.  It  may  be  that 
there  will  be  very  few.  It  may  be  that 
the  counsel  representing  th’e  corporations 
will  draw  out  the  very  things  that  we 
would  like  to  have  asked:  but  we  would 
like  to  have  it  understood,  and  would 
like  to  have  the  commission  make  some 
sort  of  arrangement  whereby  we  can  Vie 
heard,  to  some  slight  extent,  In  the  ex- 


animation  of  the  future  witnesses.  We 
will  be  very  brief:  but  it  seems  to  us  that 
there  are  some  things  that  ought  to  be 
said  in  respect  to  our  matters  that  the 
other  gentlemen  will  probably  hot  draw 
out.  Of  course,  we  leave  it  entirely  to 
the  commission.  Those  are  suggestions 
that  we  make  at  the  present  time. 

The  Chairman:  I think  I can  say  that 
the  commission  will  hear  you  as  to  tve 
justice  of  the  suggestion  that  you  make, 
and  that  they  will  feel  themselves  com- 
pelled to  consider  the  whole  question  in 
the  light  of  the  varying  aspects  of  it 
that  are  brought  into  it  by  the  individual 
operators.  The  only  thing  that  the  com- 
mission have  intimated  is  not  that  they 
were  tired  of  the  special  testimony  that 
has  been  brought  out,  but  that  we 
thought  it  was  about  time  that  we  were 
getting  at  some  of  the  testimony  that 
bears  more  nearly  now— after  having 
heard  the  general  statement — that  bears 
more  nearly  upon  the  work  we  have  in 
hand  and  the  very  grave  duty  that  is 
imposed  upon  us  by  the  submission  of 
the  two  sides  to  this  controversy;  but  we 
are  willing  to  hear  the  operators  who 
are  parties  to  this  controversy,  by  their 
counsel  or  representatives,  at  any  time, 
only  suggesting  and  hoping  that,  so  far 
as  this  witness  is  concerned,  they  will 
consider  the  great  length  at  which  he 
has  been  examined,  and  whether  there 
is  anything  more  to  be  interrogated  of 
him  that  it  can  be  profitable  for  this 
commission  to  hear. 

Mr.  Burns:  There  is  only  one  question 
that  I should  like  to  ask  Mr.  Mitchell,  on 
a point  that  I do  not  think  has  been 
suggested  before.  That  is,  I should  like 
to  ask  Mr.  Mitchell  what  he  considers 
the  definition  of  a miner’s  job. 

Q.  I think  you  have  referred  to  or  used 
the  term  “miner’s  job,”  not  as  to  what 
he  works  at,  but  as  to  his  title  or  claim 
to  a particular  place,  when  he  has  not 
been  working  there  for  a time,  or  when 
he  has  been  on  strike,  and  comes  back. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  the  words 
“miner's  job”  in  that  light? 

A.  Oh.  I think  that  the  general  or  usual 
accepted  term  would  be  the  job  that  he 
left  when  he  went  on  strike. 

Does  Not  Surrender  Claim. 

Q.  What  I want  to  get  at  particularly 
is,  what  is  his  title  to  it?  Is  there  ary 
vested  right?  For  instance,  a few  weeks 
before  this  strike,  a miner  was  emp’oved 
who  went  to  work.  In  a couple  of  weeks' 
the  strike  occurred,  and  he  left.  He  was 
paid  in  full  by  the  company  for  his  ser- 
vices and  all  relations  with  them  appar- 
ently terminated.  After  a time  the  com- 
pany put  a non-union  miner  in  that 
chamber  where  he  had  been.  When  he 
comes  back,  he  complains  and  says: 
“Here  is  another  man  who  has  got  my 
job,  and  I want  the  union  to  take  some 
steps  in  regard  to  it,  and  I want  to  get 
my  job  back.”  Why  does  he  say  his  job, 
when  he  has  voluntarily  abandoned  it, 
and  received  his  pay  and  the  accounts 
are  all  squared  between  him  and  the 
company? 

A.  Well,  when  a man  goes  on  strike  he 
does  not  surrender  his  claim  for  re-em- 
ployment the  same  as  he  would  if  he 
absolutely  quite  work  when  there  was  no 
strike  and  left  the  employ  of  the  com- 
pany. A man  is  on  strike  for  better 
wages,  or  to  get  some  improvement  in 
the  conditions  of  his  employment,  better 
wages  for  the  particular  employment  he 
was  doing,  or  for  improvement  in  the 
conditions  of  the  employment  he  was  do- 
ing. He  never  surrenders  absolutely  his 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

right  to  that  employment,  because  he  is 
striking  for  it  back.  He  is  striking  to 
get  back  to  work  at  a higher  rate  of 
wages  or  under  improved  conditions  of 
employment. 

Q.  You  speak  about  a surrender  of  his 
right.  What  right  ? Did  the  company 
employ  him  for  a year  or  two  years?  Is 
there  any  contract  between  them  that 
cannot  be  terminated  by  either  at  any 
time?  .And  when  they  have  terminated  it, 
when  the  miner  stops  working  and  the 
company  pays  him  for  all  the  work  he 
has  done,  is  there  anything  left  to  sur- 
render? 

A.  Regally,  he  has  no  claim  on  the 
company.  Morally,  I think  he  has.  Of 
course,  it  is  true  that  men,  under  the 
usual  conditions,  have  no  claim,  no  rights 
in  employment.  That  right  the  employ- 
ers exercise.  A man  has  the  right  to 
employment,  as  things  have  been,  if  the 
operators  wanted  to  give  him  employ- 
ment; but  we  believe  that  when  this 
strike  ended,  ending  under  the  conditions 
it  did — ending  practically  by  both  sides 
stopping  fighting— a cessation  of  hostili- 
ties, that  the  conditions  should  have 
been  re-established  that  prevailed  prior 
to  the  inauguration  of  the  strike;  that  is 
to  say.  the  men  should  be  permitted  to 
return  to  their  old  jobs.  As  for  the  non- 
union men  who  had  taken  their  places, 
we  do  not  ask  for  their  discharge,  but 
there  was  any  amount  of  room  for  them. 

I dare  say  that  the  anthracite  mines  to- 
day could  employ  ten  thousand  or  fifteen 
thousand  men.  There  are  that  many 
that  have  not  come  back  to  them  who 
went  away.  The  non-union  men  that 
have  had  our  men’s  jobs  might  have 
been  moved  into  the  positions  that  were 
vacant— that  is  to  say,  jobs  that  the  men 
did  not  return  to  take. 

Tlie  Absolute  Eights. 

Q.  I am  not  asking  you  as  to  the  re 
lations  between  the  companies  and  the 
union  miners.  I am  asking  you  as  to 
the  absolute  rights  you  seem  to  infer,  in 
some  of  the  answers  you  have  made  to 
the  questions— you  seem  to  have  inferr  d 
that,  there  was  some  mysterious  or  un- 
defined absolute  right  which  the  miner 
had  to  come  back  to  work  for  the  com- 
pany again.  Now,  I will  suppose  a lit- 
tle further.  Suppose,  when  your  unirn 
men  left  the  employ  of  the  D.  and  II. 
or  the  D.,  L.  and  W..  those  companies 
had  succeeded  in  filling  every  chamber 
in  their  mines  with  non-union  men. 
Would  you  still  consider  that  you  had  a 
right  to  come  back,  and  to  keep  th  s 
strike  going  as  to  tlie  whole  region  un- 
til the  D.  and  H.  and  the  D.,  L.  and  W. 
ousted  their  non-union  miners  and  put 
your  men  back  in  their  places? 

A.  That  would  depend  absolutely  on  the 
conditions  under  which  the  strike  ended. 
If  the  strike  were  defeated,  if  the  men 
were  defeated,  of  course  they  would  go 
back,  just  as  they  usually  do.  They 
would  go  back,  hat  in  -hand,  and  ask  for 
their  job. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  that  under  this 
submission  to  this  commUsion  the  right 
is  reserved  on  the  'part  of  the  employers 
to  retain  the  non-union  men  that  they 
already  have,  or  is  it  you  contention  that 
when  a contract  is  made  with  you— if  ore 
is  made— that  all  the  miners  or  men  em- 
ployed shall  be  members  of  your  union? 

A.  Of  course,  I should  not  presume  to 
intimate  to  the  commission  what  the  pro- 
visons  of  the  contract  they  shall  recom- 
mend will  be,  if  they  recommend  a con- 
tract or  award  a contract;  but  I under- 


39 


stand  the  companies  have  said  that  they 
would  not  discharge  non-union  men.  That 
is  to  say,  they  would  not  submit  the 
right  of  discharging  thair  men.  We  have 
not  asked  for  it.  W'e  do  ask,  and  will 
ask,  the  commssion  to  restore  onr  people 
to  their  positions.  We  have  not  asked 
that  the  non-union  men  he  discharged 
from  the  employ  of  the  companies.  There 
will  be  any  amount  of  work  for  them  in 
the  mines. 

Q.  That  does  not  exactly  answer  my 
question.  What  I want  to  know  now  is, 
suppose  that  one  of  the  individual  opera- 
tors has  half  of  his  chambers  filled  now 
with  non-union  men.  and  the  commission 
should  award  a contract,  or  should  say 
that  he  ought  to  make  a contract  with 
you.  What  does  that  contract  mean? 
Does  it  mean  that  you  shall  govern  all 
the  men  in  the  mine  with  your  rules  and 
regulations,  or  does  it  mean  that  the 
contract  only  applies  to  those  union  men 
represented  by  you,  and  their  relations 
with  the  operators? 

Would  Be  Presumption. 

A.  I feel  it  would  be  presumption  on 
my  part  to  say  to  the  commission— and  I 
cannot  say  to  you  without  saying  it  to 
the  commission — just  exactly  what  < he 
wording  and  purport  of  their  decision 
shall  be.  I hope  that,  whatever  it  is,  it 
will  do  justice  to  everybody— that  is  all. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Burns,  pardon  me 
a.  moment.  Of  course,  the  commission  will 
necessarily  he  governed  by  the  terms  of 
the  submission. 

Mr.  Burns:  It  seems  to  me  a little 
vague  in  that  respect. 

The  Chairman:  Of  course,  if  it  is  vague 
it  will  be  unfortunate,  and  we  will  have 
to  make  the  best  we  can  of  it,  but  the 
submission,  as  we  understand  it,  and  we 
have  considered  that  matter  very  care- 
fully, is  contained  in  the  letter  of  the 
operators,  on  the  one  side,  to  the  presi- 
dent or  to  the  public,  and  the  acceptance 
of  the  mine  workers,  on  the  other.  That 
is  the  submission,  and  that,  as  we  under- 
stand, defines  our  authority,  and  a'so 
defines  as  we  consider,  somewhat,  the 
obligations  of  the  two  sides.  I find,  in 
the  letter  of  the  operators,  at  the  close 
of  it,  after  consenting  that  a commis- 
sion be  appointed  by  the  president  of  the 
United  States,  if  he  is  willing  to  perform 
that  public  service,  to  whom  shall  be 
referred  all  questions  at  isme  between 
the  respective  companies  and  their  own 
employes,  whether  thy  belong  to  a unmn 
or  not,  and  the  decision  of  that  commis- 
sion shall  be  accepted  by  us,  the  com- 
mission to  be  constituted  as  follows— then 
comes  the  following:  “That  immediately 
upon  the  constitution  of  such  commission, 
in  order  that  idleness  and  non-production 
may  cease  instantly,  the  miners  will  re- 
turn to  work  and  cease  all  interference 
with  or  persecution  of  any  non-uni  n 
men  who  are  working  or  who  shall  here- 
after work.”  That  being  the  condition 
upon  which  the  operators  offered  a sub- 
mission, which  was  afterward  accented, 
that  the  miners  shall  instantlv  return  ‘o 
work,  necessarily  implies  that  thev  shall 
have  work  to  which  they  can  return. 

The  Witness:  That  is  the  position  we 
take  in  the  matter  absolutely.  Mr.  Burns. 
We  take  the  position  that  co  far  we  have 
been  denied  the  right  to  return  to  work. 

Mr.  Burns:  That  applies  to  the  opera- 
tors who  signed  that  letter,  but  our  reo- 
ple,  whom  I represent,  were  not  part:os. 

The  Chairman:  Tf  they  are  here,  why 

they  become  practically  parties  to  this 
agreement.  A bill  in  equity,  you  know, 


40 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


may  be  filed  on  behalf  of  the  immediate 
parties  and  all  of  those  who  shall  there- 
after come  in  and  make  themselves  par- 
ties. 

Mr.  Burns:  The  section  that  you  honor 
just  read  provides  as  to  what  shall  be 
done  immediately,  and  is  evidently  for  a 
temporary  purpose;  that  is,  that  they 
shall  return  to  work;  but  that,  it  seems 
to  me,  does  not  furnish  a permanent 
rule.  It  is  very  important  for  us  to  un- 
derstand as  to  whether  we  are  to  be  al- 
lowed to  employ  non-union  men,  and  to 
retain  those  we  have. 

Finding  of  Commission. 

The  Chairman:  That  is  a matter  that 
will  be  involved  in  the  finding  of  the 
commission,  I take  it.  I think  the  under- 
standing, so  far  as  the  commission  can 
interpret  it,  is  that  pending  the  hearing- 
pending  the  consideration  of  the  questions 
by  this  commission — that  the  strikers 
should  return  immediately  to  work;  and 
I think  it  is  the  further  understanding- 
do  not  let  us  be  misunderstood — had  by  the 
commissipn.  is  that  non-union  men 
should  not  be  interfered  with  nor  dis- 
placed from  employment  generally  by  the 
return  of  the  striking  miners. 

Mr.  Burns:  And  that  the  commission 

will  take  all  these  things  into  considera- 
tion in  their  final  findings  in  regard  to  it. 

The  Chairman:  Well,  I think  we  will 
have  to. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  Q.  One  more  question, 
Mr.  Mitchell.  Perhaps  it  does  not  bear 
very  heavily  upon  this.  I understand  the 
Eleventh  Commandment  is,  “Thou  shalt 
not  take  thy  neighbor’s  job.”  Does  that 
rule  apply  outside  of  the  union,  or  does 
it  only  apply  as  to  union  people,  and 
between  union  people?  For  instance,  dur- 
ing the  strike,  a considerable  number  of 
your  men  went  up  in  the  country  and 
worked  on  farms,  evidently  supplying  la- 
bor there  that  might  have  been  done  by 
the  farm  laborers  themselves,  and  at  a 
reduced  price;  for  instance,  they  worked 
for  fifty  cents  a day  and  their  board. 
Would  you  consider  that  as  taking  an- 
other man’s  job? 

A.  I do  not  understand  that  the  strikers 
took  other  men’s  jobs.  There  is  always, 
in  the  summer-time,  temporary  labor  to 
perform  on  farms,  and  our  people  dis- 
placed no  one,  and  did  not  take  a job 
that  had  formerly  been  held  by  onyone. 

Q.  Perhaps  you  are  not  as  well  in- 
formed about  farming  as  I am.  because 
I have  been  there;  but  a farm  laborer's 
opportunity  for  work  is  only  in  the  sum- 
mer, and  some  of  them  only  for  the 
haying  and  harvesting,  as  we  call  it. 
Now,  if  your  men  went  there  and  took 
those  jobs  at  the  commencement  of  hay- 
ing, they  necessarily  took  the  work  away 
from  those  men  who  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  do  that  amount  of  labor  there. 
I was  only  asking  you  if  you  considered 
that  as  taking  another  man’s  job. 

A.  I cannot  say  that  it  was  taking  an- 
other man's  job  unless  it  was  a position 
formerly  held  by  some  other  man. 

Necessary  Consequence. 

Q.  Then,  perhaps  as  a necessary  conse- 
quence of  that,  some  farmers’  boys  came 
down  to  work  in  the  valley,  and  one  of 
them,  at  least,  I rember  now,  went  to 
work  at  a washery  at  Mayfield.  A few 
days  afterward  he  was  filled  full  of 
buck-shot  and  made  a cripple  for  life. 
Do  you  consider  that  as  taking  one  of 
your  jobs?  Was  he  coming  down  to  take 
a job  that  belonged  to  you?  He  worked 
In  a washery,  where  none  of  your  men 
were  employed  before;  certainly  where 


none  of  your  men  were  ready  to  take  em- 
ployment. 

A.  Well,  I think  it  is  rather  an  abstract 
proposition  all  the  way  through,  and  I 
should  simply  say  this. as  I said  before, 
that  when  a strike  ends,  the  conditiors 
of  employment  are  stipulated — are  speci- 
fied. In  this  termination,  we  were  to  re- 
turn to  work.  The  operators  made  the 
condition  themselves  that  we  immediately 
return  to  work.  The  president  of  the 
United  States  says  to  us  and  the  men: 
“I  request  you  to  go  back  to  work.”  We 
do  go  back  to  work.  Every  man  returns 
to  work,  and  we  say  to  the  pre-ident, 
“We  are  going  to  work.  We  are  going  to 
our  old  jobs,”  and  immediately  we  go 
there  and  are  refused  them.  We  have 
hundreds  of  men  idle  now— refused  the 
right  to  go  back. 

Q.  But  in  this  particular  case  I am  ask- 
ing about,  the  strike  had  not  ended,  and 
there  was  no  immediate  prospect  of  end- 
ing it.  Why  not  have  let  that  man  work 
peaceably  until  the  strike  was  ended  and 
then  raise  the  question? 

A.  I repeat  that  if  anybody  filled  him 
full  of  buck-shot,  they  did  wrong.  It 
was  a wrong  act.  And  if  it  was  our  peo- 
ple, they  certainly  would  be  condemned 
for  it  and  ought  to  be  condemned  for 
it.  I do  not  know  who  did  it;  probably 
someone  else. 

Q.  No  one  else  apparently  had  a reason 
for  doing  it.  The  companies  would  not. 
The  citizens  would  not.  Non-union  men 
would  not,  and  he  was  a man  who  never 
had  an  enemy  in  the  world.  Now,  in  re- 
lation to  a washery  that  was  started  en- 
tirely after  your  strike  was  commenced, 
did  your  men  have  any  interest  there,  or 
any  vested  right  or  moral  or  legal  right 
to  interfere  with  the  workmen  who  were 
employed  at  that  washery,  which  was 
built  and  commenced  to  operate  after 
your  strike  commenced,  so  that  certainly 
they  were  taking  none  of  your  places? 

They  Had  the  Right. 

A.  AVell,  they  had  this  right.  They  had 
the  right  to  ask  the  men  not  to  start  to 
work  at  the  new  washery,  because  the 
operation  of  the  new  washery  was  going 
to  contribute  to  the  defeat  of  the  general 
cause  for  which  the  miners  were  strik- 
ing. They  had  no  right  to  prevent  them 
by  anything  except  legal  and  lawful 
means. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a pretty  good  rule,  the  old 
saying  to  mind  your  own  business?  Now. 
what  business  had  your  men  to  go  to  the 
Duryea  washery  and  even  in  a peaceable 
manner  to  go  onto  somebody’s  else  land, 
in  order  to  persuade  the  workmen  there 
from  working? 

A.  They  had  as  much  right  to  persaude 
men  from  working  there  as  they  had  to 
persuade  them  from  working  anywhere 
else. 

Q.  Well,  they  did  more  than  persuade 
them  there,  didn’t  they? 

A.  I understand  they  did.  We  had  a 
poor  fellow  going  along  one  night  and 
somebody  killed  hfm,  and  went  out  dur- 
ing the  night  and  picked  the  bullet  out 
of  his  head,  so  they  could  not  be  sure 
who  it  was.  They  certainly  did  things 
there  more  than  persuade. 

Q.  As  you  say,  you  are  not  informed, 
and  I am  not  informed  as  to  who  did  it. 
A.  No,  I was  not  informed  who  did  it. 

Q.-  But  there  were  cases  where  they 
came  in  broad  daylight,  in  large  crowds, 
and  endeavored  to  intimidate  men  who 
were  there  at  work— and  used  actual 
violence?  A.  Where  that  was  reported  to 
me,  I sent  a special  man  right  to  Dur- 
yea and  rep.eatedly  sent  word  to  our 


people  there  that  they  must  cease  inter- 
ference of  an  unlawful  character — sent 
special  officers  to  Duryea  to  stop  it. 

Q,  Then  you  would  not  approve  of  that? 
A.  Of  unlawful  acts;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Burns,  just  pause 
for  a moment.  We  are  drifting  right 
back  to  the  old  controversy.  Now, 
whether  you  think  or  Mr.  Mitchell  thinks 
that  the  acts  described,  supposing  they 
were  committed,  were  wrong  or  not,  the 
commission  think  they  were  wrong,  and 
the  moral  sense  of  the  public  is  that 
they  were  wrong.  I do  not  see  anything 
to  be  gained  by  going  over  and  over  this 
matter.  Excuse  me  if  I speak  somewhat 
emphatically,  but  the  commission  have 
heard  a great  deal  about  it.  and  they 
have  a moral  sense  of  their  own.  which 
I presume  agrees  with  the  moral  sense 
of  the  community  and  of  society  general- 
ly. I do  not  think  it  makes  very  much 
difference  to  the  commission — I say  it 
with  all  respect — what  Mr.  Mitchell 
thinks  about  it  or  what  Mr.  Burns  thinks 
about  it. 

Very  Important. 

Mr.  Burns:  But  if  the  commission 

please,  it  is  very  important  to  both  sides 
here — the  union  men,  the  operators  and 
those  who  are  non-union  men  who  desk  e 
to  work  here — as  to  this  other  question 
which  I have  been  endeavoring  to  pre- 
sent. Whether  the  commission  finds,  as 
I suppose  it  can  find  and  recommend  or 
direct,  that  the  union  men  cease  entire'y 
from  molesting  non-union  me  in  their 
own  particular  work  under  the  order; 
whether  the  commission  do  that,  or 
whether  they  do  not  do  it.  is  a matter  of 
the  most  vital  importance. 

The  Chairman:  Yes,  but  what  bearing 
has  this  particular  colloquy  upon  that 
subject? 

Mr.  Burns:  It  is  to  show  the  commis- 
sion what  has  been  the  custom  and  what 
ought  to  be  corrected. 

The  Chairman:  This  witness  does  not 
testify  as  to  whether  those  things  have 
been  done  or  not.  He  cannot  do  it,  he 
says  he  cannot  do  it,  that  he  does  not 
know  anything  about  it.  Now.  these 
acts,  if  proved  at  all.  ought  to  be  proved 
by  somebody  who  knows  something  about 
them. 

Mr.  Burns:  We  probably  shall  not 

have  the  opportunity  of  meeting  Mr.  Mit- 
chell on  the  stand  hereafter,  and  I was 
only  asking  him  as  to  his  views  on  the 
Subject.  Supposing  that  these  things  are 
all  true,  as  they  will  be  proved,  and  sup- 
posing that  the  commission  has  the 
power  to  say  what  shall  be  done  by  the 
union  men  in  regard  to  the  non-union 
men.  It  would  be  of  some  importance  to 
get  his  views  here  as  to  whether  he 
approved  of  it,  or  as  to  whether  he  could 
do  it. 

The  Chairman:  He  has  been  asked  that 
very  question  over  and  over  again.  I 
think  you  will  agree  that  the  commission 
are  not  impatient  when  they  draw  the 
line  at  mere  cumulative  testimony. 

Mr.  Burns:  As  a general  rule,  he  has 
succeeded  in  evading  the  question. 

The  Chairman:  Oh,  I do  not  think  so — 
the  commission  do  not  think  so. 

The  Witness:  I will  say  that  a direct 
answer  would  be  this:  Whatever  the 

commission  decide,  whatever  they  award, 
even  in  relation  to  the  non-union  men, 
we  shall  accept,  and,  as  far  as  I am 
concerned,  the  miners  will  carry  it  out  to 
the  last  letter  or  get  out  of  our  union. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  Q.  Have  you  enter- 

tained that  view  and  have  you  made  that 
expression  heretofore  in  regard  to  that? 


Is  not  that  something  new  that  you  have 
just  expressed? 

A.  No,  it  is  not  something  new.  I said 
in  my  opening  statement  to  the  commis- 
sion— emphasized  it  over  and  over  again' — 
that  we  are  pledged  to  accept  the  award 
of  the  commission,  that  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  is  pledged. 

Non-union  Men’s  Standing. 

The  discussion  relative  to  the  non- 
union men’s  standing  before  the  com- 
mission followed  this: 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Lenahan,  with  ref- 
erence to  the  matter  of  your  application 
to  appear  before  the  commission  as  coun- 
sel for  certain  non-union  workers  in  the 
mines,  the  commission  have  considered 
that  application,  and  in  the  light  of  the 
claims  that  you  have  filed  with  the  com- 
mission on  behalf  of  your  clients,  and 
they  have  looked  at  the  papers  which 
have  come  before  them  unofficially,  not 
filed,  and  containing  a list  of  those  whom 
your  represent;  and  the  commission  have 
concluded  that  you  may  be  allowed  to 
appear  for  the  non-union  men  who  you 
say  you  represent,  upon  the  condition 
that  you  appear  on  the  same  basis  as 
other  formal  parties  to  the  hearing,  with 
the  distinct  understanding  though  that 
the  commission  cannot  be  in  any  degree 
a party  to  the  withholding  of  any  mat- 
ter, or  the  identity  of  any  person  con- 
nected with  the  issue  before  the  com- 
mission, from  fall  publicity. 

Mr.  Lenahan:  We  will  accept  that 

suggestion. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Then,  your  honor,  we  are 
to  have  the  names  of  the  parties  whom 
these  counsel  represent? 

The  Chairman:  We  cannot  withhold 

them. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Are  they  a part  of  the 

record  of  this  commission? 

The  Chairman:  Part  of  the  records  of 

this  commission  and  therefore  you  have 
access  to  them. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Thank  you.  In  our  for- 

mal answer  to  this  commission  we  al- 
leged— 

The  Chairman:  I take  it,  Mr.  Darrow, 

of  course,  that  it  will  be  exercised  in  all 
fairness  on  both  sides.  Mr.  Mitchell  ap- 
peared in  Washington  at  the  initial  hear- 
ing before  this  commisison  and  said  that 
he  represented  the  anthracite  mine  work- 
ers of  this  region  who  were  on  strike. 
That,  I understood,  was  his  statement. 
The  gentlemen  say  that  they  represent 
certain  non-union  mine  workers  who 
were  not  on  a strike.  Mr.  Mitchell  has 
not  been  asked  to  disclose  the  names  of 
the  union  men;  and  if  it  were  possi- 
ble, I suppose  he  has  no  objection  to  giv- 
ing them.  The  gentlemen  who  represent 
these  other  men  have  been  admitted  on 
the  same  terms.  Mr.  Micthell  represent- 
ed an  organized  body  of  workmen.  The 
men  represented  by  Mr.  Lenahan  are  not 
organized.  We,  therefore,  required  to 
know  whom  he  represented;  but  in  saying 
what  we  have,  that  we  cannot  be  a party 
to  withholding  any  matter  connected  with 
this  appearance  from  the  public,  we  of 
course  rely  upon  the  discretion  of  coun- 
sel that  no  unfair  use  shall  be  made  of 
those  names,  or  that  they  be  subjected  to 
trouble,  reproach  or  anything  of  -that 
kind. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Oh,  no. 

The  Chairman:  Otherwise  the  commis- 

sion would  feel  that  they  had  been  a par- 
ty to  reflecting  upon  innocent  people 
through  this  means,  and  subjecting  them 
to  injustice. 


mini;  strike  Commission 

Merely  to  Investigate. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Oh,  certainly.  All  the 

use  I propose  to  make  of  these  names  is 
to  investigate  as  to  whether  these  gen- 
tlemen have  hired  a lawyer  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Lenahan:  They  have  hired  two. 

Mr.  Darrow:  We  shall  claim  in  our 

answer  that  they  have  been  hired  by  op- 
erators instead  of  by  non-union  men,  and 
that  they  have  come  in  here  to  represent 
operators  and  not  to  represent  non-union 
men. 

The  Chairman:  We  do  not  know  how 

that  may  be;  but  we  want  to  say  as  to 
that,  whether  they  be  hired  in  that  way 
or  not,  and  whoever  pays  the  bill,  they 
represent  an  important  element  in  this 
controversy. 

Mr.  Darrow:  We  have  no  objection  to 

that. 

The  Chairman:  The  men  would  indi- 

cate if  they  are  represented,  and  that 
they  are  interested  in  the  findings  of  this 
commission. 

Mr.  Darrow:  We  have  no  objection  to 

that. 

The  Chairman:  We  have  considered 

this  very  carefully  from  all  sides  and  en- 
deavored to  do  the  right  thing.  We  have 
felt  the  importance  of  the  suggestion 
that  the  names  be  kept  secret,  but  we 
could  not  consent  that  tne  commission 
should  be  a party  to  the  suppression  of 
anything  that  occurs  before  it,  or  any 
matter  of  the  identity  of  persons.  At  the 
same  time,  we  did  feel  that  there  was  a 
certain  reason  for  asking  that  this  list 
might  not  be  disclosed,  and  we  would  feel 
very  much  the  responsibility  if  any  harm 
should  come  to  these  men  by  reason  of 
that  disclosure.  As  the  application  was 
made,  however,  we  had  to  deal  with  it. 
At  the  same  time,  we  thought  that  the 
commission  could  not  be  a party  to  sup- 
pressing anything,  either  the  matter  of 
the  application,  or  the  identity  of  the  per- 
sons. At  the  same  time,  we  felt  the  re- 
sponsibility of  their  being  made  public. 
That  responsibility,  however,  must  rest 
upon  the  shoulders  of  the  parties  who 
made  the  application.  That  does  not  re- 
lieve us,  though,  from  the  feeling  of  anx- 
iety and  the  hope  that  there  shall  come 
no  harm  to  any  person  in  any  way  from 
anything  that  is  done  before  this  com- 
mission. It  would  distress  the  commis- 
sion very  much  if  that  should  be  the 
case. 

Now,  whether  the  gentlemen  who  ap- 
pear for  these  so-called  non-union  work- 
ers, or  non-striking  workers,  are  paid  by 
one  party  or  the  other  seems  to  the  com- 
mission entirely  immaterial,  if  they  in- 
deed represent  the  men  whi  they  say  they 
represent. 

Who  They  Represent. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  There  is  one  thing,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  we  want  clear,  and  that 
is  that  these  gentlemen  represent  only 
the  men  who  worked  during  the  strike. 
We  deny  that  they  represent  the  non- 
union men.  We  represent  the  non-union 
men  to  a greater  extent,  by  far,  than 
they  do. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Mitchell,  they  have 
filed  their  authority  for  that  purpose. 
We  required  them  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  I want  to  say  that  we 

have  thousands  of  non-union  men  who 
were  on  strike  and  are  parties — 

The  Chairman:  I used  the  words  “non- 
striking workers.” 

Mr.  Mitchell:  I understood  you  said  so. 

The  Chairman:  But  whoever  they  are, 

they  have  filed  their  authority  and  it  is 

there  for  your  inspection. 


41 

Mr.  Ross  brought  out  that  the  fatal 
accidents  among  the  12,000  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  mine  em- 
ployes last  year  was  three-tenths  of 
one  per  cent,  of  the  whole,  and  asked 
Mr.  Mitchell  how  that  compared  with 
the  average  in  the  soft  cbal  region. 
The  witness  said  he  would  put  in  fig- 
ures later,  showing  comparisons. 

Reading  from  the  constitution  of  the 
Illinois  State  union,  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  Mr.  Ross  showed  that  the 
district  board  is  empowered  to  order  a 
strike*  at  will.  Mr.  Mitchell  explained 
again  that  the  contracts  in  the  Illinois 
region  are  above  the  union  constitution; 
that  each  contract  contains  a provision 
to  the  effect  that  the  contract  shall  not 
be  set  aside  because  of  any  law  or  rule 
of  the  national,  state  or  local  unions. 

Mr.  Ross  also  tried  to  have  it  appear 
from  excerpts  from  the  Illinois  union’s 
constitution  that  a miner  can  not  work 
in  that  state  unless  he  belongs  to  the 
union,  and  can  not  belong  to  the  union 
until  he  pays  an  initiation  fee  of  $25. 
Mr.  Mitchell  said  any  man  can  join  the 
union,  and  after  he  joins  he  can  have 
all  the  time  within  reason,  half  a year, 
if  he  wants  it,  to  pay  his  initiation  fee. 
Mr.  Ross  pointed  out  that  this  gave  the 
union  the  power  of  restricting  the  out- 
put, and  claimed  that  because  of  the 
undesirability  on  the  part  of  the  miners 
to  have  too  many  men  in  the  mines,  it 
was  a temptation  to  them  to  exercise 
this  power. 

Mr.  Wolverton  began  his  cross  exam- 
ination by  securing  from  the  witness  an 
admission  that  he  had  practically  no 
knowledge  of  the  conditions  in  the 
Reading  companies’  mines,  except  what 
he  got  second-handed.  Following  up 
the  discussion  regarding  the  feasibility 
of  a separate  anthracite  union: 

By  Mr.  Wolverton: 

Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  the  anthracite  field, 
or  the  anthracite  coal  in  the  United 
States,  is  contained  in  about  six  counties 
in  Pennsylvania?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  All 
the  regular  anthracite  coal?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  The  bituminous  field  covers  a large 
section  of  the  United  States  outside  of 
Pennsylvania — nearly  every  state?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  United  Mine  Workers  cover  the 
whole  of  this  territory  of  bituminous  and 
anthracite?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  You  are  pres- 
ident of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  anu 
your  jurisdiction  extends  over  the  whole 
United  States?  A.  Yes,  sir 

Q.  Yesterday . you  suggested  that  at  the 
next  annual  convention  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  you  would  suggest  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution  by  which 
no  strike  should  be  inaugurated  in  the 
anthracite  region  unless  by  the  votes 
solely  of  the  officers  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  in  the  anthracite 
district?  A.  If  you  undei'stood  me  that 
way,  I possibly  did  not  make  myself 
clear.  What  I did  say,  or  meant  to 
say,  was  that  I should  recommend  that 
our  constitution  be  so  amended  that  if 
a question  of  a national  strike  were  un- 
der discussion  the  vote  of  the  anthracite 
and  bituminous  members  would  be  equal; 
that  is  to  say,  that  one-half  of  the  votes 
would  be  from  the  anthracite  field,  and 
one-half  from  the  bituminous  field,  and 
that  a strike  could  not  be  inaugurated  in 


42 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


the  anthracite  field  by  a vote  of  the  bit- 
uminous members.  They  could  not  inaug- 
urate a strike  in  the  anthracite  by  a voce 
of  the  bituminous  members  and  a strike 
could  not  be  inaugurated  in  the  bitum- 
inous by  a vate  of  the  anthracite  mem- 
bers. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  preferrable,  con- 
sidering the  vast  interest  and  the  vast 
territory  covered  by  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America,  that  an  amendment 
to  the  constitution  should  be  suggested 
that  it  be  divided  and  a separate  organ- 
ization formed  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, or  whatever  name  they  chose  to  give 
it,  that  organization  relating  to  an#  hav- 
ing government  of  only  the  anthracite 
region  instead  of  communicating  with 
the  heads  of  the  organization  at  Indian- 
apolis, outside  of  this  district  entirely? 

Not  Desirable. 

A.  It  would  neither  be  possible  nor  de- 
sirable. The  anthracite  miners  want  to 
be  members  of  the  United  Mine  Workers 
of  America.  The  anthracite  miners 
have  had  an  independent  and  separate 
organization  in  the  past,  they  have  had 
several  of  them,  and  they  have  gone, 
they  are  not  here  now;  they  do  not 
want  any  more  of  their  organizations  to 
go  the  same  way  they  went  in  the  days 
that  are  gone  by. 

Mr.  Torrey  brought  out  that  strikes 
can  be  declared  by  a bare  majority 
vote;  that  boys  under  16  years  of  age 
have  a half  vote,  and  over  16  a full 
vote,  and  that  the  last  strike  was  de- 
clared by  less  than  a seven  per  cent, 
majority. 

Mr.  Torrey  also  put  in  evidence  a 
copy  of  Mr.  Mitchell’s  statement  of  the 
day  following  the  Shenandoah  riot  of 
July  31,  in  which  he  declared  no  one 
had  been  killed  or  seriously  injured; 
that  the  stories  had  been  greatly  exag- 
gerated and  the  facts  distorted,  and 
that  the  trouble  could  have  been  avert- 
ed if  the  deputies  were  cool  and  dis- 
creet. 

Mr.  Mitchell  explained  that  the  state- 
ment was  based  on  information  which 
he  considered  reliable  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Darrow  at  this  juncture  made 
to  the  commission  a statement  of  the 
reasons  a trades  union  does  not  want 
to  be  incorporated.  Principal  among 
these  was  that  if  an  operator  for  in- 
stance sued  a union  and  got  judgment 
against  it,  which  the  union  was  finan- 
cially unable  to  meet,  the  operator 
could  apply  for  a receiver  and  wind  up 
the  organization.  A trade  union,  un- 
like a business,  can  not . be  run  by  a 
receiver. 

Major  Warren  drew  attention  to  the 
fact  that  in  Pennsylvania  there  is  a 
special  statute  for  incorporating  trades 
unions,  which  does  away  with  Mr.  Dar- 
row’s  difficulty. 

Paid  for  by  Weight. 

Attorney  John  J.  Murphy  here  intro- 
duced the  act  of  March  30,  1S75,  provid- 
ing that  all  coal  shall  be  paid  for  by 
weight,  where  practicable  to  weigh  it, 
and  pointed  out  that  while  it  might  be 
the  case  that  it  was  generally  supposed 
this  act  was  repealed  by  the  general 
mining  act  of  1891,  such  was  not  the 
case.  The  only  repealing  clause  in  the 


general  act  was  one  to  the  effect  that 
“all  acts  or  parts  of  acts  inconsistent 
herewith  are  hereby  repealed.”  Mr. 
Mu  phy  pointed  out  that  there  was 
nothing  in  the  general  act  with  which 
the  act  of  1875  could  be  inconsistent. 

Commissioners  Gray  and  Parker  ex- 
pressed surprise  that  such  an  import- 
ant act  should  have  been  lost  sight  of, 
and  declared  it  would  be  an  important 
factor  in  determining  the  commission- 
ers’ action  on  the  question  of  weigh- 
ing coal,  providing  it  was  sustained. 
None  of  the  companies’  attorneys  chal- 
lenged the  accuracy  of  Mr.  Murphy’s 
claim. 

On  re-direct  examination  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell, in  answer  to  Mr.  Darrow’s  ques- 
tions told,  among  other  things,  that 
the  division  of  sentiment  at  the  Hazle- 
ton convention  was  not  as  to  whether 
or  not  to  strike,  but  as  to  the  time  to 
begin  the  strike.  Mr.  Mitchell,  himself, 
favored  the  strike  this  year,  but  ad- 
vised that  it  be  not  entered  upon  until 
later. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  Mr.  Mitchell,  when  this  strike  was 
declared,  did  anybody  excepting  the  an- 
thracite mine  workers  vote  uoon  the 
question?  A.  No,  sir.  Q.  You  did  not  in- 
augurate this  strike  yourself?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Something  has  been  said  as  to  the 
majority  by  which  this  strike  was  de- 
clared. Was  the  division  of  sentiment 
purely  as  to  the  time  of  striking?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  The  division  on  the  date  was 
caused  purely  by  my  advice  that  the 
strike  be  not  inaugurated  at  that  time. 

Q.  You  thought  it  would  be  more  fa- 
vorable to  delay  it?  A.  I had  two  pur- 
poses in  seeking  the  delay.  One  was  the 
lingering  hope  that  we  might  be  able  to 
secure  better  conditions  of  employment, 
or  better  relationship  by  mediation  or 
by  conference  with  the  operators.  Fail- 
ing in  that,  the  other  was  that  we  would 
inaugurate  the  strike  at  a more  propitious 
time. 

Q.  Your  opposition,  or  any  opposition  in 
the  organization  had  no  reference  to  Lhe 
injustice  of  these  demands?  A.  None  at 
all,  simply  that  we  might  more  speedily 
remedy  the  conditions,  that  the  strike 
would  not  be  so  protracted  if  inaugur- 
ated later  in  the  year 

Q.  Now,  some  questions  were  asked  as 
to  cases  of  contract.  Supposing  where 
a contract  existed  any  local  organization 
should  fail  to  carry  out  that  contract, 
then  what  would  be  done  as  to  that  or- 
ganization? A.  We  should  reprimand 
them  at  once,  and  immediately  advise 
them  to  carry  out  the  contract.  Q.  On 
failure  to  do  it?  A.  On  failure,  to  carry 
out  the  contract,  we  would  either  sus- 
pend them  from  the  organization  or  re- 
voke their  charters.  Q.  All  these  organi- 
zations have  a charter  from  the  general 
body?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  the  way  you 
discipline  the  locals,  the  last  discipline, 
is  to  revoke  their  charters?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  in  case  that  happens,  would 
other  union  men  go  on  and  carry  out  the 
contract?  A.  If  any  part  of  the  employ- 
er's particular  men  were  whiling  to  carry 
out  the  contracts,  we  would  immediately 
reorganize  and  allow  them  to  carry  out 
the  contract.  If  none  of  them  were  will- 
ing to  do  that,  we  would  take  the  char- 
ter and  make  the  mine  non-union.  Q.  So 
the  work  would  go  on?  A.  It  would  go  on 
as  a non-union  mine. 


Q.  One  clause  of  your  constitution,  I 
believe,  speaks  of  no  miner  being  al- 
lowed to  have  more  than  two  laborers.  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  What  is  the  purpose  of  that? 
A.  Well,  one  purpose  is  to  prevent  favor- 
itism, and  another  is  that  the  system  in 
this  field  has  been  absolutely  vicious,  and 
it  often  develops  into  an  unfair  distribu- 
tion of  the  cars,  so  that  a man  having 
several  laborers  may  receive  cars  to  load, 
to  the  exclusion  of  some  other  person  who 
has  not  several  laborers,  and  the  earnings 
of  the  men  not  having  a lot  of  laborers 
are  very  low,  because  of  the  custom  of 
allowing  one  contractor  to  have  several. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  some  instances  of 
larger  numbers  of  laborers  being  em- 
ployed? A.  I know  in  a general  way.  1 
do  not  know  of  specific  instances.  Q. 
How  high  do  some  of  them  run?  A.  As 
high  as  twenty. 

The  Chairman:  In  the  anthracite  re- 

gion? 

The  Witness:  Yes,  it  has  been  so  that 

one  man  would  have  twenty  laborers.  I 
think  that  that  is  not  true,  however,  since 
the  union  came  here 

Conditions  in  This  H.egion. 

Rev.  Dr.  Roberts  took  the  stand  when 
Mr.  Mitchell  stepped  down  at  12.15,  and 
was  still  on  at  adjourning  time,  under 
cross-examination  by  Mr.  Wolverton, 
counsel  for  the  Reading  company.  Dr. 
Roberts  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr. 
Darrow.  He  began  by  giving  a raft  of 
information  concerning  conditions  in 
the  anthracite  region. 

Some  of  his  information  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

The  coal  region  is  480  square  miles  in 
extent,  embracing  eight  counties.  The 
total  population  is  650,000.  Of  this 
number  450,000  are  directly  dependent 
on  the  coal  industry. 

In  arriving  at  his  findings  regard- 
ing wages,  Rev.  Dr.  Roberts  said  he 
had  consulted  due  bills  mainly.  Ex- 
treme cases  where  a miner  earned  $150 
a month  or  worked  a month  without 
any  net  earnings  were  discarded. 

Mr.  Wolverton  protested  this  was  not 
good  evidence.  It  would  be  necessary 
he  said  to  call  in  each  miner  to  find  out 
how  it  happened  he  earned  so  little  or 
so  much.  The  companies,  he  said, 
would  put  in  primary  evidence  showing 
what  every  miner  received.  Mr.  Dar- 
row agreed  that  his  side  would  be  con- 
tent if  the  companies  would  do  this. 

The  witness  was  next  asked  if  condi- 
tions had  changed  in  mining  conditions 
of  a general  character.  He  said  there 
had  been.  The  big  veins  have  been 
worked  out  and  the  thin  ones  are  be- 
ing developed.  As  Mr.  Burns  had  stat- 
ed, the  independent  operators  are  work- 
ing the  more  difficult  veins. 

There  are  four  methods  of  payment, 
car,  weight,  yard  and  day.  The  wages 
are  not  at  all  uniform  in  the  region, 
and  discrimination  makes  very  dissim- 
ilar wages  in  the  same  mine. 

Ten  or  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  total 
production  of  the  northern  coal  fields  is 
paid  for  by  weight;  in  the  middle  field 
none  by  weight,  and  in  the  southern, 
30  per  cent,  by  the  car,  and  70  per  cent, 
by  the  yard. 

The  size  of  the  car  has  grown  stead- 


ily  since  the  car  method  was  adopted. 
After  the  strike  of  ’69,  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western,  Delaware 
and  Hudson  and  Pennsylvania  com- 
panies, which  refused  to  adopt  the 
sliding  scale  fixed  with  their  employes 
on  a rate  of  93%  cents  a car  for  the 
Diamond  car.  The  witness  said  the 
Diamond  car  originally  contained  from 
74  to  76  cubic  feet  and  was  to  have  six 
inches  of  topping.  The  present  car 
varies  from  80  to  92  cubic  feet. 

Hew  Topping  Is  Lost. 

A car  loaded  in  the  mine  seldom  has 
the  same  “topping”  when  it  reaches 
the  surface.  Miners  some  times  “crib” 
their  cars  in  loading,  putting  in  the 
coal  so  that  it  will  leave  large  spaces. 
This  will  cause  a settlement  when  the 
car  is  jolted  in  transportation.  Some- 
times a car  that  is  fairly  and  properly 
loaded  will  have  its  topping  scraped  off 
by  low  roof.  The  natural  “shaking 
down”  of  coal  in  transportation  from 
the  breast  to  the  breaker  averages  five 
per  cent.  A miner  is  never  allowed 
anything  extra  if  there  is  more  than 
six  inches  of  topping.  Payment  by  the 
car  has  been  the  cause  of  dissatisfac- 
tion and  complaint  ever  since  1850,  said 
the  witness. 

In  the  early  days  of  mining  the 
miners  were  principally  Irish,  Welsh, 
English,  Scotch  and  Germans.  In  1870 
Southern  Europeans  began  to  come  in 
large  numbers.  In  1890  this  immigra- 
tion began  to  fall  off.  The  mode  of 
living  of  the  early  miner  and  the  new 
comer  is  vastly  different. 

In  1870-’75  the  emigrants  were  single 
men.  After  that  married  men  and  their 
families  began  to  come.  All  the  South- 
ern Europeans,  excepting  the  Italians, 
who  came  after  1875,  as  a general  rule 
can  be  considered  settlers. 

Strikes  began  in  1868,  just  after  the 
war  for  the  8-hour  day.  For  two  years 
there  was  almost  constant  friction.  In 
1870  the  Southern  Europeans  began  to 
flock  in  here. 

In  answer  to  a question  by  Commis- 
sioner Watkins  as  to  whether  or  not 
in  his  investigations  he  had  found  any 
evidence  of  the  corporations  being  in- 
terested in  the  importation  of  these 
immigrants.  The  witness  said  that 
Slavs,  themselves,  had  told  him  that 
coal  operators,  especially  the  independ- 
ent operators,  had  been  instrumental 
in  bringing  these  people  here.  They 
had  ship  agents  in  Europe  gathering 
them  up  and  sending  them  over,  and 
other  agents  in  New  York  turning  them 
into  the  coal  fields. 

Acquiring  Homes. 

During  the  last  ten  years  these  peo- 
ple have  been  rapidly  becoming  own- 
ers of  their  own  homes. 

In  Olyphant  and  the  Second  ward  of 
Blakely,  the  witness  said,  there  are 
4,135  mine  employes.  In  this  same 
community  there  are  sixty-four  boys 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

under  14  years  of  age  working  in  the 
mines.  Twenty-four  under  12  years, 
and  ten  working  under  ground  who 
are  under  14  years  of  age. 

The  witness  also  told,  incidentally, 
that  daughters  of  miners  are  working 
at  night  in  silk  mills,  and  asked  that 
it  be  formally  protested  against  “in  the 
name  of  humanity.” 

The  average  age  at  which  miners’ 
children  leave  school,  taking  Mahanoy 
City  and  Taylor  as  criterions,  is  11% 
years.  In  the  mining  regions,  of  the 
pupils  in  High  schools,  less  than  5 per 
cent,  are  miners’  children,  and  less  than 
2 per  cent,  are  among  the  graduates. 

The  average  number  of  paupers  in 
Pennsylvania  is  173  in  100,000.  In  the 
anthracite  region  the  average  is  193  in 
100.000. 

To  show  the  hazardous  character  of 
the  miners’  employment,  Dr.  Roberts 
gave  a mass  of  figures  and  compari- 
sons. The  average  number  killed  in 
the  anthracite  mines  is  greater  than 
the  average  among  railroad  employes, 
though,  as  to  accidents,  the  conditions 
are  reversed.  In  the  last  twenty-one 
years,  the  number  of  inside  employes 
in  the  anthracite  mines  who  were  fa- 
tally injured  was  4.42  to  the  1,000. 

The  region  has  numerous  churches, 
and  the  people  are,  generally  speaking, 
regular  church  goers,  the  witness  said. 
There  are  many  Catholics  among  the 
people,  possibly  a majority,  and  all  of 
these  attend  church  very  religiously. 
There  are  eleven  hospitals  in  the  reg- 
ion, only  one  of  which,  the  Moses  Tay- 
lor hospital,  is  not  either  a state  or 
quasi-public  institution. 

The  coming  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  the  witness  said,  tended  to 
better  the  people,  especially  the  for- 
eign-speaking mine  workers.  The  de- 
crease of  saloons  in  Schuylkill  county 
was  cited  as  an  indication  of  this.  By 
association  in  the  local  meetings  with 
the  English-speaking  men  they  were 
given  a consciousness  of  importance 
and  individual  worth. 

There  have  been  eleven  big  strikes  in 
the  region  in  fifty  years,  about  half  of 
them  general.  These  strikes  took  place 
in  1850,  1S68,  1869,  1870-71,  1872,  1875,  1877, 
1879,  1887  and  18S8. 

In  answer  to  a question  by  Commis- 
sioner Clark  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
violence  in  the  last  strike  was  greater 
than  during  previous  strikes,  the  wit- 
ness said  he  was  not  able  to  testify  as 
to  this.  The  reports  of  violence,  how- 
ever, were  greatly  exaggerated  in  the 
newspapers.' 

Dr.  Roberts  was  cross-examined  by 
Mr.  Wolverton,  attorney  for  the  Read- 
ing company,  relative  to  his  statistics. 
First  he  had  the  witness  admit  that  he 
got  most  of  his  figures  from  the  bureau 
of  mines  and  department  of  labor.  Mr. 
Wolverton  then  created  some  amuse- 
ment by  asking  the  witness  to  give  his 
opinion  as  to  the  reliability  of  various 
book  reports  and  the  like,  among  which 


43 

was  an  1901  publication  on  Anthracite 
Mining  by  Commissioner  Parker;  ar.d 
1901  reports  by  Commissioner  Wright, 
head  of  the  department  of  labor,  and 
Assistant  Recorder  Mosely,  secretary  of 
the  inter-state  commerce  commission. 
The  witness  admitted  these  are  reliable. 

Mr.  Wolverton  got  the  witness  to  ad- 
mit that  it  is  impracticable  to  pay  by 
weight  in  “pitching  veins,”  which  ob- 
tain so  generally  in  the  southern  dis- 
trict, where  the  Reading  company’s 
mines  are  all  located.  Mr.  Darrow  in- 
terrupted to  explain  that  the  miners 
were  not  asking  for  payment  by  weight 
in  pitching  veins.  The  demand  was  for 
payment  by  weight  where  practicable, 
he  explained.  In  pitching  veins  it  is 
impossible  to  throw  the  rock  and  slate 
aside.  It  must  be  sent  out  with  the 
coal.  Therefore  it  is  necessary  to  pay 
in  this  region  by  the  yard. 

The  impracticability  of  apportioning 
the  prepared  product  equally  among  the 
miners  as  a means  of  fixing  a basis  of 
pay  was  also  admitted  by  the  witness. 
It  would  not  be  fair  to  the  company, 
because  it  would  decrease  output  and 
it  would  not  be  fair  to  the  energetic 
miner  to  make  him  accept  the  same 
share  as  a lazy  one. 

Excerpts  from  Book. 

Mr.  Wolverton  then  began  reading 
some  excerpts  from  Dr.  Roberts’  bodk 
published  last  year  and  presuming  to 
be  an  exhaustive  general  and  technical 
treatise  on  the  anthracite  coal  regions. 

One  of  the  first  things  Mr.  Wolverton 
read  from  the  book  was:  “The  Read- 

ing company  has  the  reputation  of 
dealing  fairly  and  justly  with  its  em- 
rdoves.” 

“Is  that  correct?”  inquired  Commis- 
sioner Watkins. 

“I’ll  admit  its  reliability,”  replied  Mr. 
Wolverton. 

One  of  the  next  things  he  read  was 
the  declaration  that  the  English-speak- 
ing miners,  as  a rule,  -are  not  as  in- 
dustrious as  the  foreign-speaking 
miners;  that  they  rarely  spend  more 
than  five  hours  a day  in  the  mines. 

Other  excerpts  from  various  pages  of 
the  book  were  introduced  to  prove  the 
very  contentions  the  operators  are 
making.  One  passage  very  particularly 
set  forth  that  the  variation  of  wages 
was  closely  linked  with  the  very  vari- 
able conditions  and  that  it  was  imprac- 
ticable to  make  rates  of  wages  uni- 
form. Dr.  Roberts  admitted  this  was 
true  now  as  it  was  when  he  wrote  his 
book,  but  he  wanted  to  add  that  there 
was  no  reason  why  the  same  class  of 
labor  should  not  receive  the  same  pay 
where  conditions  were  similar.  The 
same  allowances  should  be  made,  he 
thought,  for  setting  props,  cutting  rock, 
bailing  water  and  the  like  in  all  col- 
lieries in  a district. 

Mr.  Wolverton  was  still  engaged  in 
examining  Dr.  Roberts  on  his  book 
when  adjourning  time  came. 


44 


PROCEEDINGS  of  the  anthracite 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Nov.  20. 

[From  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  Nov.  21.] 


Few  witnesses  the  operators  them- 
selves will  call  can  be  expected  to  give 
testimony  more  corroborative  of  their 
contentions  than  that  adduced  yester- 
day from  Rev.  Peter  Roberts,  Ph.D., 
the  witness  before  the  mine  strike  com- 
mission whom  the  miners  called  to  the 
stand  to  succeed  their  chief  witness, 
President  John  Mitchell,  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers. 

Rev.  Dr.  Roberts  has  made  a spe- 
cialty of  sociological  studies,  and  in  the 
course  of  the  past  year  published  a 
book  on  “The  Anthracite  Mining  In- 
dustry,’’ and  a series  of  strike  articles 
for  the  Outlook  and  Yale  Review. 
Three  weeks  ago  he  engaged  himself  to 
assist  President  Mitchell,  Henry  D. 
Lloyd,  Dr.  Walter  Weyl  and  the  miners’ 
attorneys  in  preparing  their  case,  and. 
priming  himself  to  be  their  chief  wit- 
ness, next  to  President  Mitchell. 

In  his  examination  in  chief,  he  made 
an  excellent  witness  for  the  cause  he 
espouses.  On  cross-examination,  how- 
ever, he  proved  a convenient  and  effect- 
ive channel  through  which  the  oppo- 
sition could  transmit  to  the  commis- 
sion a vast  amount  of  wide-ranged  tes- 
timony, especially  favorable  to  its 
cause,  by  reason  of  it  being  help  from 
the  enemy.  Sincerely  rather  than  sar- 
castically, Mr.  Wolverton,  counsel  for 
the  Reading  company,  at  the  conclus- 
ion of  his  cross-examination  of  Dr. 
Roberts,  complimented  him  on  the  ex- 
cellence of  his  articles  and  thanked  him 
for  them.  Not  a little  speculation  was 
rife  among  the  onlookers  as  to  why  the 
complainants  had  permitted  him  to 
take  the  stand,  when  it  could  have  been 
known  that  the  respondents  would 
thereby  be  supplied  with  ammunition. 

Could  Nojt  Disavow  Them. 

Because  of  the  recent  date  of  the 
doctor’s  publications,  it  was  not  pos- 
sible for  him  to  gracefully  disavow  the 
views  expressed  therein  or  to  attempt 
to  modify  to  any  considerable  extent 
the  statements  of  fact.  Consequently 
everything,  pretty  much,  that  was 
paraded  before  him  of  his  published 
utterances  had  quite  the  same  effect  as 
if  newly  recited  by  himself  from  the 
witness  box. 

Appended  are  a few  brief  excerpts 
that  will  serve  as  sample  bricks  of  the 
doctor’s  indirect  testimony: 

From  “The  Anthracite  Coal  In- 
dustry:”— 

“This  (to  adjust  wages  on  a uniform 
basis)  can  not  be  done  in  the  anthra- 
cite coal  fields.” 

"Conditions  constantly  change  and 
with  the  changes  readjustments  must 
be  made.” 

“A  standard  price  will  never  be  prac- 
ticable.” 

“Some  collieries  have  far  more  favor- 
able circumstances  than  others.” 

“The  spirit  of  unionism  among  the 


employes  brings  about  many  strange 
and  inconsistent  actions.  Men  who  in- 
sist upon  individual  rights  are  the  least 
tolerant  of  these  rights  when  governed 
by  the  union.” 

“If  a miner  will  not  join  the  union  a 
driver  will  not  give  him  cars.” 

“It  is  the  fashion  of  the  day  to  be 
one  of  the  union,  and  if  you  are  not, 
the  boycott  falls  on  you.” 

“The  question  (whether  or  not  to  in- 
augurate a strike)  was  decided  by  an 
Italian  swinging  a revolver  around  his 
head  and  shouting,  ‘Strike, ^strike!’  ” 
From  The  Outlook,  Oct.  18,  1902:  — 
“These  (acts  of  violence)  sometimes 
take  a form  that  is  brutal  beyond  de- 
scription.” 

“Nothing  in  the  annals  of  savagery 
exceeds  in  brutality  the  fatal  assaults 

“The  savage  attacks  were  revolting 
and  horrible.” 

Could  Be  Multiplied. 

“The  instances  (of  violence)  above 
given  could  be  multiplied  indefinitely.” 
“Occasionally  such  villainous  deeds 
are  done  * * * ” 

“The  attempt  (to  call  out  all  the  fire- 
men, pumpmen  and  engineers)  * * * 

■will  stand  forth  as  a conspicuous  ex- 
ample of  short-sighted  policy,  precipi- 
tated by  a spirit  compounded  equally 
of  braggadocio,  spite  and  stupidity.” 
From  The  Outlook,  Nov.  S,  1902:  — 
“Not  for  a generation  -will  the  en- 
mities and  hatred  engendered  by  this 
strike  die  away.” 

“It  (the  strike)  disturbs  social  peace 
at  home  and  sets  brother  against 
brother.” 

“On  the  day  of  the  funeral  the  under- 
taker could  not  get  a man  to  remove 
his  (non-unionist’s)  remains  from  the 
house  to  the  funeral  car.” 

From  the  Yale  Review,  May,  1902: — 
“Interest  flags  in  the  union  when  no 
conflict  is  impending  or  in  progress. 
Twenty  per  cent,  of  the  members  do 
not  pay  dues  and  the  other  twenty  per 
cent,  pay  them  in  a perfunctory  way.” 
“No  uniform  rate  (of  wages)  can  be 
laid  down.” 

“The  spirit  of  unionism  is  inconsist- 
ent. intolerant.” 

The  articles  in  The  Outlook  were 
signed  “P.  Q.  R.”  Dr.  Roberts  would 
not  admit  or  deny  that  he  was  the 
author.  When  asked  if  they  -were  not 
his  writings  he  said.  “I  would  prefer 
not  to  answer  that  question.”  He,  how- 
ever, admitted  indirectly,  a dozen  times 
at  least  that  they  wefe  his  articles. 
The  cross-examiners  after  reading  a 
passage  would  ask  him  if  his  opinion 
now  was  the  same  as  expressed  there- 
in, and  almost  Invariably  he  answered 
in  the  affirmative,  sometimes  with  a 
reluctant  “Yes.” 

When  Mr.  Wolverton  had  finished 
reading  the  doctor’s  arraignment  of  the 


strikers  for  their  violence  during  the 
strike,  the  witness  insisted  on  reading 
a further  paragraph  from  an  Outlook 
article  in  which  he  says: 

Would  Be  Absurd. 

“It  would  be  absurd  to  charge  the 
miners’  organization  with  all  these 
crimes  and  offenses.  Their  leaders, 
generally  speaking,  deprecate  them,  and 
most  of  the  conservative  men  of  the 
union  have  done  all  in  their  power  to 
check  it.” 

During  the  afternoon  the  miners'  side 
temporarily  withdrew  Dr.  Roberts  from 
the  stand.  Physicians  were  then  called 
to  testify  to  the  unhealthfulness  of 
mine  work  and  to  contradict  the  antic- 
ipated claim  of  the  companies  that  they 
contribute  largely  to  the  support  of 
hospitals  in  the  mine  regions. 

Mr.  Wolverton  resumed  the  cross- 
examination  of  Dr.  Roberts  at  the 
opening  of  the  morning  session  on  the 
contents  of  the  doctor’s  book,  at  which 
he  was  engaged  the  day  before,  when 
the  adjourning  hour  arrived. 

From  the  doctor’s  work  Mr.  Wolver- 
ton read  that  because  of  differences  in 
the  different  mines  “it  is  impossible  to 
adjust  wages  on  a uniform  basis.  This 
cannot  be  done.  It  -will  never  be  prac- 
ticable. Large  powers  of  discretion  in 
the  regulation  of  wages  must  be  vested 
in  the  foremen.” 

Uniform  Scale  Impossible. 

The  contortions,  irregularities,  flexures 
and  impurities  in  the  veins  of  anthracite 
make  it  impossible  to  adjust  wages  on  a 
uniform  basis  throughout  the  anthracite 
coal  fields.  Bituminous  coal  miners  meet 
their  employers  every  year,  and  a uni- 
form basis  is  laid  down  for  vast  areas 
of  the  coal  field,  and  the  agreement  -works 
satisfactorily  to  both*  employer  and  em- 
ploye. 

This  cannot  be  done  in  the  anthracite 
coal  fields,  and  the  difficulty  lies  in  the 
geological  structure  of  the  coal  deposits. 
Conditions  of  workings  constantly  change, 
and  with  the  changes,  readjustment  of 
wages  must  be  made.  This  is  left  to  the 
judgment  of  the  foreman  in  charge. whose 
duty  it  is  to  do  justice  by  the  workman. 

Experienced  men,  who  have  spent  their 
life  time  in  the  anthracite  mines,  posi- 
tively affirm  that  a standard  price  for 
mining  in  these  coal  fields  will  never  be 
practicable.  In  the  case  of  men  working 
by  contract,  nothing  mor’e  than  general 
rules  can  be  laid  down.  Each  shaft  has 
Its  peculiarities,  and  never  will  it  be  pos- 
sible to  operate  these  mines  without  en- 
trusting large  powers  -of  discretion,  as  to 
the  adjustment  of  prices,  to  the  foreman 
in  charge. 

The  only  possible  sphere  of  action  for 
the  union  is  local.  Each  shaft  may  have 
its  local  assembly,  which  may  by  a com- 
mittee. try  to  secure  its  members  rea- 
sonable remuneration.  This  is  being  done, 
and  it  is  the  only  extent  to  which  the 
efforts  at  adjusting  contract  prices  can 
go. 

Some  collieries  have  far  more  favor- 
able natural  conditions  than  others.  There 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


are  collieries  in  the  southern  coal  fie'd 
which  consume  from  eight  to  ten  per 
cent,  of  the  tonnage  to  generate  steam, 
because  they  hoist,  from  a depth  of  1,5C0 
feet,  two  tons  of  rock  and  ten  tons  of 
water  for  every  ton  of  coal  produced.  In 
mines  where  there  is  much  rock  to  be 
blasted,  if  it  is  hard  sandstone,  it  will 
cost  the  company  from  $2  to  $2.75  a yard 
in  allowances.  In  a shaft  in  Lackawan- 
na county  the  employers  paid  a miner 
as  high  as  $6  a yard  for  blasting  rock. 

Two  difficulties  meet  us  in  the  effort  to 
get  data  as  to  the  cost  of  producing  a 
ton  of  coal.  First,  the  refusal  of  the 
operators  to  give  the  figures;  and,  sec- 
ond, the  great  variety  of  these  figures 
providing  we  could  get  them.  No  two 
collieries  are  alike,  and  the  same  colliery 
has  not  the  same  figure  for  two  succes- 
sive months. 

After  bringing  out  that  the  allowances 
for  cutting  rock  varies  from  $2  to  $6 
per  yard,  Mr.  Wolverton  questioned  the 
witness  at  length  on  his  idea  of  how  it 
would  be  possible  to  make  uniform 
rates  for  this  kind  of  work.  The  wit- 
ness practically  admitted  it  was  im- 
possible. 

Are  Far  from  It. 

When  asked  if  mine  operators  were 
generally  “hard-hearted,  unjust  men, 
who  ground  down  the  poor  to  the  last 
penny,”  Dr.  Roberts  answered,  “Far 
from  it.” 

Reading  from  Dr.  Roberts’  article  in 
the  Tale  Review,  of  May,  1902,  Mr.  Wol- 
verton showed  that  at  that  time  the 
witness  had  declared  there  were  no 
dissensions  or  discontent  in  the  Schuyl- 
kill region.  That  the  relations  between 
the  Reading  company  and  its  employes 
were  “most  amiable,”  and  that  the  men 
of  the  southern  fields  were  opposed  to 
a strike.  In  this  article,  also,  Dr.  Rob- 
erts declared  that  “no  uniform  rate  of 
wages  can  be  laid  down.” 

From  an  October  article  of  Dr.  Rob- 
erts in  the  same  paper  the  witness  de- 
clared that  the  miners  and  laborers  of 
the  northern  coal  field  were  then  at 
logger-heads  over  division  of  pay,  and 
the  refusal  of  the  miners  to  obey  the 
law  requiring  them  to  remain  in  the 
chamber  until  the  laborer  is  through. 
The  majority  of  the  miners  are  home 
before  noon,  the  article  adds. 

Further  on  in  the  article  Dr.  Roberts 
states  that  interest  in  the  union  flags 
when  there  is  no  conflict  on  or  im- 
pending; that  twenty  per  cent,  of  the 
members  were  at  that  time  refusing  to 
pay  their  dues  and  another  twenty  per 
cent  were  paying  them  in  a perfunctory 
way.  It  was  also  declared  that  the  of- 
ficers of  the  union  were  very  much 
concerned  about  the  dissensions  and 
lack  of  interest  in  the  union. 

Mr.  Wolverton  pointed  out  that  at  the 
close  of  the  strike,  the  thousands  of 
mine  workers  from  the  anthracite  re- 
gion who  flocked  into  the  bituminous 
region  flocked  back  again  with  such  a 
rush  that  the  railroads  could  scarcely 
take  care  of  them.  Dr.  Roberts  said 
they  were  attracted  here  by  social  and 
property  ties.  Mr.  Wolverton  mention- 
ed that  many  of  these  were  bachelors, 
whose  relatives  were  all  in  the  old 


country.  "Maybe  they  had  girls  in  this 
region,”  said  the  witness. 

Mr.  Wolverton  elicited  from  the  wit- 
ness that  there  are  fifteen  religious  hol- 
idays observed  in  the  anthracite  re- 
gion; that  the  mines  are  sometimes 
shut  down  by  breaker  boys  “turning 
out”  to  go  to  the  circus. 

Not  Due  to  Carelessness. 

The  witness  did  not  agree  with  the 
mine  inspectors  that  the  majority  of 
accidents  are  due  to  the  carelessness  of 
the  injured.  He  held  that  primarily  the 
hazardous  character  of  the  industry  is 
blamable. 

Judge  Gray  remarked,  “There  is  a 
margin  of  carelessness  naturally  be- 
longing to  a human  being.”  ■ 

Mr.  Wolverton  said  it  was  his  ex- 
perience that  this  margin  was  intensi- 
fied in  men  working  in  dangerous  oc- 
cupations. They  became  used  to  dan- 
ger and  consequently  reckless  of  it. 

Judge  Gray  told  that  while  on  the 
tour  through  the  mine  regions  he  was 
riding  on  a mine  car  underground,  and 
if  it  wasn't  for  some  one  behind  him 
pulling  him  back  his  forehead  would 
have  struck  against  a “collar.” 

“But,”  said  Mr.  Wolverton,  “nature 
has  done  something  for  you  and  me 
that  is  not  taken  into  consideration  in 
the  construction  of  gangways.” 

That  the  coming  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  created  dissensions  in  the  an- 
thracite region  which  never  before  ex- 
isted, the  witness  would  not  agree.  It 
was  true,  he  would  say,  as  applied  to 
employer  and  employe,  but  not  further 
than  this. 

As  to  mine  inspectors’  reports,  Dr. 
Roberts  explained  that  the  reports  of 
accidents  were  often  secured. 

Here  Mr.  Wolverton  read  from  Dr. 
Roberts’  book  the  following  on  the 
spirit  of  unionism; 

Spirit  of  Unionism. 

The  spirit  of  unionism  among  the  em- 
ployes brings  about  many  strange  and  in- 
consistent actions.  Men  who  insist  upon 
individual  rights  and  personal  liberty  are 
the  least  tolerant  of  these  rights  when 
governed  by  the  union.  One  of  the  aims 
of  the  organization  is  to  promote  peace 
and  order,  and  yet  many  acts  are  done 
by  its  members  which  disturb  the  peace 
of  society.  When  a member  of  the  Thir- 
teenth regiment  secured  work  in  one  of 
the  collieries  of  Lackawanna  county  a 
committee  of  the  local  union  asked  the 
foreman  to  dismiss  him.  He  refused  to 
do  so  and  the  employes  went  on  strike. 
If  a miner  will  not  join  the  union  the 
driver  will  not  give  him  cars.  Last  De- 
cember, a small  boy,  not  15  years  of  age, 
driving  in  one  of  the  collieries  of  the 
northern  field  delivered  a car  to  an  elder- 
ly man,  old  enough  to  be  his  grandfather, 
and  told  him:  “You  put  your  tools  in 

that  and  get  out  for  you  won’t  get  no 
more  cars.”  The  miner  appealed  to  the 
foreman.  The  latter  went  to  the  boy  and 
ordered  him  to  drive  cars  to  the  cham- 
ber in  question;  he  told  him  he  would 
not  do  it.  The  foreman  told  the  child, 
“You  had  better  take  my  tape  and  book, 
for  you  seem  to  run  this  shaft.”  That 
child  was  the  hero  of  the  hour.  Five 
driver-boys,  from  the  age  of  15  to  18 


years,  in  another  shaft,  had  wage  griev- 
ances not  involving,  all  told,  more  than 
fifty  cents  a day.  Without  a word  of 
warning  to  their  parents,  or  a single  at- 
tempt at  adjusting  their  grievances  by 
seeing  the  foreman  or  superintendent, 
they  declared  a strike.  The  employes  lost 
by  it  over  $30,000  in  wageg,  and  the  boys 
were  referred  to  in  mass  meetings  as 
examples  to  their  fathers  in  “manhood, 
courage  and  liberty.”  A father  and  son 
worked  at  a washery  during  the  strike. 
When  resumption  came,  the  employes  of 
that  colliery  would  not  begin  work  until 
the  father  and  son  were  discharged.  The 
foreman  had  to  do  it.  The  offenders  had 
to  appeal  to  the  local  union  for  member- 
ship as  the  only  condition  of  securing 
work.  They  were  admitted  by  paying  an 
entrance  fee  of  $15.  The  regular  fee  was 
$1  a member.  Miners  often  have  two  or 
three  laborers  to  work  for  them,  but 
when  a miner  takes  a contract  which 
enables  him  to  hire  miners  and  laborers, 
he  is  disqualified  as  a member  of  the 
union,  although  he  pays  the  standard 
wage  in  the  colliery  to  the  men  he  hires. 
During  the  last  strike  some  of  the  miners 
wrere  sworn  in  as  deputies  by  the  com- 
panies to  guard  their  property.  These 
men  are  now  members  of  the  union,  but 
they  are  closely  watched  and  suspected 
of  being  spies  in  behalf  of  the  opera- 
tors. 

Oft  Times  Ludicrous. 

Instances  of  the  spirit  of  unionism  of- 
ten met  with  stre  more  ludicrous  than 
serious.  Four  boarders  left  a boarding 
house  at  the  same  time,  saying.  “They 
weren’t  going  to  board  with  no  scab 
boarding  boss.”  A butcher  wagon  in  its 
rounds  stopped  to  sell  meat  at  the  door 
of  a non-union  man.  Some  of  the  union 
men  told  the  butcher,  “If  you  sell  to  him 
you  can’t  to  us.”  A miner  sat  in  a bar- 
ber’s chair  being  lathered  for  a shave. 
Six  union  men  entered  and  took  their 
seats.  They  identified  the  man  in  the 
chair  as  one  of  the  non-union  men.  As 
the  barber  was  about  to  apply  the  razor, 
one  of  the  men  said,  “If  you  shave  that 
man  you  don’t  shave  us.”  The  man  had 
to  vacate  the  chair  unshaved.  A store- 
keeper insisted  on  his  personal  liberty, 
which  finds  so  large  a place  in  the  ad- 
dresses of  the  labor  leaders,  and  declared 
he  would  not  discharge  clerks  who  were 
not  union  men.  Half  a dozen  men  visit- 
ed his  store,  made  their  purchases,  and 
then  asked  the  clerk  to  show  his  union 
card.  He  could  not.  The  men  left  the 
goods  on  the  counter.  That  invariab  y 
makes  the  storekeeper  less  pronounced 
in  his  personal  liberty  claims.  The  spirit 
of  unionism  is  everywhere.  All  classes 
of  labor  which  can  be  organized  are 
formed  into  unions.  It  is  the  fashion  of 
the  day  to1  be  one  of  the  union,  and  if 
you  are  not,  the  boycott  falls  on  you. 

Possibly  the  most  dangerous  element 
of  the  anthracite  population  dominated 
by  this  spirit  are  the  lower  classes  cf 
Slavs  and  the  Italians.  English-speakir g 
mine  workmen  have  some  respect  for  per- 
sonal rights,  even  when  unionism  ap- 
pears in  its  most  rampant  form,  but  some 
Slavs  and  Italians  pass  beyond  all  re- 
straint. The  workingmen  in  a shaft  in 
Lackawanna  county  held  a meeting  to 
discuss  the  situation  on  Sept.  8,  ten  days 
before  the  strike  was  ordered.  The 
"foreigners”  said  “strike  now”;  the  Eng- 
lish-speaking element,  which  was  in  the 
minority,  argued  that  there  was  no  or- 
der issued,  and  tried  to  persuade  them 
to  keep  at  work  until  the  order  came. 


46 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


The  question  was  decided  by  an  Italian 
swinging  a revolver  around  his  head  and 
shouting,  “Strike,  strike.”  The  shaft  was 
shut  down  a week  before  the  general 
strike. 

Purchased  Pirearms. 

When  the  strike  was  about  to  be  de- 
clared, a company  of  “foreigners”  visit- 
ed a mining  town  to  purchase  firearms. 
There  were  two  hardware  stores  there 
which  carried  a stock  of  these  goods. 
They  entered  one  place  and  bought  the 
implements  and  the  other  store  lost  that 
portion  of  its  stock  that  night.  A car- 
penter on  the  first  day  of  the  strike  was 
engaged  repairing  a house  as  one  of  these 
men  came  along.  They  shouted,  “You 
strike,  strike  all  over,"  and  the  prudent 
man  packed  up  his  tools  and  went  home. 
In  a shaft  in  Luzerne  county  where  this 
class  of  labor  was  in  the  majority,  the 
local  union  was  governed  by  them.  The 
English-speaking  employes  were  membeis 
of  the  union,  but  held  different  views 
from  those  of  the  Slavs  and  Italians. 
When  the  Anglo-Saxons  expressed  their 
opinions  in  a meeting  of  the  union  they 
were  thrown  out.  When  notices  were 
posted  at  the  head  of  the  shaft,  statirg 
that  work  would  be  resumed  the  follow- 
ing Monday,  the  “foreigners”  were  up 
at  dawn.  . Five  ways  led  to  the  mines. 
On  each  road  an  organized  troop  was 
posted,  and  if  any  employe  had  come  to 
begin  work  that  morning,  there  would 
have  been  bloodshed.  In  another  shaft, 
twelve  Italians,  said  to  be  members  of 
the  Mafia,  held  all  the  colliery  in  terror, 
and  nothing  could  be  done  unless  en- 
dorsed by  them.  Anglo-Saxons  know  how 
to  slug  a “scab,”  but  the  “foreigners” 
use  the  knife  and  revolver.  In  Shanan- 
doah,  two  of  the  business  men  signed 
the  petition  sent  to  the  governor  of  the 
state  asking  for  troops  to  protect  !ire 
and  property  at  the  time  of  the  riots. 
The  Slavs  boycotted  them  in  a manner 
wholly  their  own.  They  organized  them- 
selves in  squads,  and  stood  sentinels  be- 
fore these  business  houses,  and  anyone 
who  attempted  to  enter  was  prevented 
by  physical  force.  The  officers  arrested 
some  of  the  ringleaders.  The  crowd  in- 
stantly gathered  and  demanded  the  re- 
lease of  the  men,  and  the  burgess  pro- 
dently  conceded  their  demand. 

A most  atrocious  deed  was  perpetrated 
last  summer,  which  was  by  public  opin- 
ion attributed  to  unionism,  though  no 
direct  proof  was  ever  found.  A non- 
union Polander  had  a cow.  One  night 
some  wretch  tied  a stick  of  dynamite  to 
its  horns  and  blew  its  head  to  atoms. 
With  such  an  element  forming  a large 
percentage  of  the  mining  population, 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that, 
should  a conflict  develop  to  its  most 
serious  stages,  riots,  bloodshed  and  ar- 
son would  be  the  inevitable  result. 

About  Outrages. 

Mr.  Wolverton  next  read  an  article 
from  the  Outlook  written  by  Dr.  Rob- 
erts in  October  last,  in  which  he  fair- 
ly out-Sunned  the  Sun  in  setting  forth 
the  “outrages”  which  occurred  during 
the  strike. 

In  his  direct  examination,  Dr.  Rob- 
erts had  said  that  the  newspaper  re- 
ports of  the  strike  disturbances  were 
greatly*  exaggerated. 

In  his  article  in  the  Outlook,  Dr.  Rob- 
erts describes  in  detail  the  violence 
that  occurred  during  the  strike  and 


then  proceeds  to  characterize  the  “out- 
rages,” as  “brutal  beyond  description,” 
revolting,  savage  and  the  like.  Append- 
ed are  excerpts. 

Let  us  consider  some  of  the  acts  of 
violence  against  persons.  These  some- 
times take  a form  that  is  brutal  be- 
yond description.  Nothing  in  the  an- 
nals of  savagery  exceeds  in  brutality  the 
fatal  assaults  made  upon  Beddall,  ot 
Shenandoah,  and  Winston,  of  Olyphant. 
The  savage  attacks  were  revolting  and 
horrible.  The  brute  aroused  in  the  Slav's 
breast  is  as  fierce  as  the  red-clawed  beast 
of  the  forest,  and  this  element  when  ex- 
cited in  the  Celt's  nature  is  a good  third. 
Some  Slavs  proposed  to  mark  every  non- 
union man  they  caught  by  clipping  his 
ear.  They  began  the  practice  on  a vic- 
tim who  they  cought,  who  in  addition 
to  that  was  slugged  and  pitched  into  tne 
creek.  Another  non-union  man  was 
watched  by  these  men.  Some  friends 
warned  him  to  stay  home,  but  the  wife 
was  the  head  of  the  home  and  she  said, 
“You  must  go  to  work.”  The  man  stood 
betwixt  two  fires.  He  chose  the  less  of 
two  evils,  and  by  cunningly  selecting 
unseasonable  hours  he  evaded  the  vig- 
ilance of  the  “vigilants.”  But  one  morn- 
ing about  three  o'clock  he  was  caught 
and  slugged.  A woman  heard  the  cries 
and  the  pummeling.  She  rushed  to  the 
window  and  shouted  for  help;  the  as- 
sailants took  fright  and  scattered,  leaving 
their  victim  in  a pitiful  condition.  If 
that  woman  had  not  interfered,  the  prob- 
ability is  that  another  victim  would  have 
been  added  to  the  list  of  the  dead  in  this 
strike.  Another  man,  a mine  foreman, 
who  lived  in  one  of  the  mine  patches  far 
removed  from  town,  had  a longing  to 
come  to  town,  ■where  he  had  not  been 
for  several  weeks.  He  risked  it  on  a 
Saturday  evening.  The  “vigilants”  saw 
him  and  lay  in  wait;  that  night  the  man 
was  sandbagged;  he  lost  his  purse  and 
watch,  and  carried  marks  of  the  assault 
for  many  days. 

Within  the  last  twenty-four  hours,  as 
the  National  Guards  are  pouring  into 
the  coal  fields,  a house  was  dynamited  at 
Brownville,  a deputy  trounced  and  thrown 
into  the  creek,  a non-union  man  slugged 
on  the  streets  of  Shamokin,  the  men  at 
work  in  a mine  at  Mount  Carmel  fired 
upon  and  stoned,  and  a mob  dispersed 
by  troops  at  the  Royal  Oak  colliery.  A 
non-union  man  and  his  wife  whom  we 
saw  last  evening  said.  “We  fear  noth- 
ing as  dynamite,”  and  the  woman,  who 
suffered  from  heart  trouble,  said,  ”1 
can’t  sleep  at  night.  I imagine  they  are 
coming  all  the  time.” 

State  of  Warfare. 

This  is  the  state  of  warfare  which  ex- 
ists in  our  society  up  to  the  coming  of 
the  National  Guard.  The  instances  above 
given  could  unfortunately  be  multiplied 
indefinitely,  and  no  section  of  the  anthra- 
cite coal  fields  is  exempt.  All  parts  of 
this  area  are  not  equally  subjected  to  a 
reign  of  terror.  We  know  of  some  sec- 
tions where  foremen  go  and  come  as  tney 
choose,  notwithstanding  they  are  •‘scab- 
bing”; in  other  communities  the  spirit  of 
lawlessness  runs  riot,  and  before  it  all 
sense  of  decency,  personal  rights,  and 
obedience  to  law  is  swept  away.  Street- 
cars are  held  up,  persons  in  them  slugged, 
incoming  trains  are  watched,  the  names 
of  those  who  leave  home  for  other  parts 
of  the  anthracite  coal  fields  to  secure 
work  are  published,  and  their  families 
maligned  and  ostracized.  It  is  a lament- 


able state  of  affairs,  and  occasionally 
such  villainous  deeds  are  done  that  men 
who  have  connived  at  slugging  hold  up 
their  hands  in  horror.  Think  of  the  vui- 
ain  who,  in  the  silent  hours  of  the  night, 
places  dynamite  under  the  porch  of  the 
house  of  a non-union  workers,  whose  wife 
was  about  to  become  a mother  and  to 
whose  side  nestled  her  two  little  children 
while  their  father  was  at  work.  That 
dastardly  deed  so  aroused  the  ire  of  one 
of  the  priests  that  he  charged  the  mem- 
bers of  the  union  with  murder,  "not.” 
said  he,  “of  men  who  can  defend  them- 
selves, but  of  innocent  women  and  harm- 
less children— yes.”  he  added,  “you  try  te 
murder  even  the  unborn.” 

Lawlessness  against  property  is  also 
prevalent.  The  order  calling  out  the 
engineers,  firemen,  pump-runners,  fire 
bosses  and  barn  bosses  must  ever  be 
regarded  by  the  unprejudiced  as  an  overt 
act  against  the  preservation  of  property. 
The  mining  industry  differs  from  most 
other  industries  because  of  the  fact  that 
the  fixed  charges  are  constant  regardless 
of  the  production  of  coal.  Unless  one  is 
ready  to  abandon  a mine,  he  must  every 
day  pump  out  the  water,  repair  the  gang- 
ways, and  keep  open  the  passages  made 
for  the  air.  Here  in  the  anthracite  coal 
fields  milions  of  dollars  are  sunk  in 
tunnels,  gangways,  airways,  stationary 
engines,  pumps,  etc.  If  all  the  pump- 
runners,  engineers,  repair  men  and  fire- 
men had  deserted  their  posts,  it  would  be 
in  every  respect  similar  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  millions  of  dollars’  worth  of  prop- 
erty. The  Lytle  colliery  was  wholly  de- 
serted. The  operators  said,  “Let  it 
stand.”  Since  June  2 no  water  has 
been  pumped,  and  this  plant,  repre- 
senting a capitalization  of  over  three- 
quarters  of  a million,  is  gradually  filling 
up.  It  will  take  from  four  to  five  months 
to  get  this  colliery  into  working  condi- 
tion so  as  to  employ  its  800  hands  and 
produce  the  amount  of  coal  which  was 
shipped  to  market  before  the  strike,  viz., 
270,911  tons  annually.  During  the  last 
December  floods  one  of  the  employes  of 
Preston  colliery  No.  3 fell  down  the  shaft. 
The  Reading  company  for  over  six  months 
worked  at  that  water  in  order  to  recover 
the  remains  of  the  drowned  man.  In 
July  last,  after  an  expenditure  of  nearly 
$50,000,  tney  succeeded  in  getting  the 
body.  No  sooner  was  this  done  than  the 
local  union  insisted  upon  the  engineers 
and  firemen  coming  out.  They  did  so, 
and  the  colliery  is  abandoned  and  the 
pumps  removed.  If  the  company  will  not 
open  it  again,  365  employes  will  be  out  of 
employment  and  135.111  tons  less  coal  an- 
nually shipped  to  market.  If  it  is  opened, 
it  will  mean  another  expenditure  of  $50,000. 
It  seems  incredible  that  intelligent  men 
should  advocate  and  adhere  to  such  a 
foolhardy  policy  as  to  insist  upon  the 
flooding  of  the  mines.  Willful  destruction 
of  capital  will  injure  none  as  it  will  labor, 
and  the  attempt  to  shut  down  the  collier- 
ies will  stand  forth  as  a conspicuous  ex- 
ample of  a short-sighted  policy,  precipi- 
tated by  a spirit  compounded  equally  of 
braggadocio,  spite,  and  stupidity. 

In  comparison  with  the  above  all  other 
attempts  at  destroying  property  are 
minor.  Dynamite  is  the  weapon  of  a 
sneak  and  a coward,  lie  cannot  plead 
the  excuse  of  the  man  who  loses  his  in- 
dividuality in  the;  crowd.  Foully  and  by 
night  does  this  degenerate  go  to  work, 
and  he  knows  not  who  may  be  the  victim 
of  his  nefarious  deed.  A doctor  in  one 
of  our  towns,  who  was  on  his  errand  of 
mercy  about  midnight,  heard  twelve 


yards  ahead  of  him  the  deafening  roar  of 
an  explosion,  and  saw  the  porch  of  a 
house  blown  to  pieces  and  the  windows 
broken  on  all  sides.  A saloon  keeper  who 
sold  liquor  to  deputies  was  suddenly 
startled  from  his  repose  by  an  explosion 
lof  dynamite  which  mads  the  spirits 
shake.  In  another  town  three  houses  of 
non-union  men  were  dynamited.  For- 
tunately none  of  the  residences  of  these 
dwellings  were  injured. 

Time  will  not  permit  mentioning  the 
tampering  with  railroad  tracks,  the  at- 
tempt to  destroy  bridges,  and  the  burning 
of  washeries.  These  deeds  of  lawlessness 
have  been  perpetrated,  and  the  sense  of 
insecurity  engendered  by  them  brings 
about  a mental  tension  which  tests  the 
steadiest  nerves,  while  it  works  havoc  on 
those  of  weak  and  timid  women.  Every 
foreman  is  armed,  and  he  keeps  his  weap- 
ons near  him  every  hour,  night  and  day, 
and  must  be  ready  to  meet  possible 
emergencies.  The  windows  of  his  home 
are  smashed,  effigies  are  hanging  in 
front  of  his  door,  his  chidren  are  insulted 
on  the  street,  their  playmates  shun  them, 
and  in  the  public  schools  they  are  vic- 
tims of  malignant  epithets.  The  wife  is 
ostracized,  and  the  butcher,  milkman, 
and  baker  are  warned  not  to  sell  their 
commodities  to  these  families. 

The  Reading  company  advanced  the 
wages  of  employes  who  have  in  this  con- 
flict stood  loyal  to  their  trust,  ten  pei 
cent.  Well  may  they.  These  men  and 
their  families  have  stood  the  brunt  of  the 
battle,  while  the  absentee  capitalist  re- 
ceives reports  at  a safe  distance.  The 
fact  that  these  foremen  are  living  with 
their  families  in  the  midst  of  the  tempest 
makes  their  sacrifice  far  greater  than  that 
of  the  imported  men  who  are  away  from 
home  and  are  well  kept  in  the  collieries. 
Some  of  these  husbands  and  fathers  are 
for  weeks  away  from  their  families,  and 
if  the  wife  or  little  bairns  go  to  see  him 
they  must  do  so  surreptitiously. 

The  consequence  of  this  division  of  so- 
ciety into  two  hostile  camps  is  serious 
and  appalling.  Both  sides  to  the  con 
fiict  are  intolerant  and  abusive.  An  im- 
partial and  rational  discussion  of  the  sit- 
uation is  not  possible.  A calm  and  ju- 
dicious estimate  of  the  merits  of  either 
side  is  abused  as  factional  and  biased. 
The  heat  of  passion  beclouds  the  judg- 
ments of  both  parties  and  the  ordinary 
demands  of  courtesy  and  charity  are  for- 
gotten. Beddall  was  buried  under  mili- 
tary escort;  Winston  was  boycotted  even 
in  death — the  lodge  to  which  he  belonged 
and  the  men  who  worked  at  his  side  ana 
were  raised  with  him  as  boys  dared  not 
attend  his  funeral.  School  teachers  with 
relatives  among  the  ranks  of  the  non- 
union men  are  cut  off  from  their  means 
of  subsistence  remorselessly;  beneficent 
societies  are  disturbed,  and  social  bonds 
are  snapped  asunder.  Such  is  the  con- 
tagion of  the  spirit  of  lawlessness  that 
wre  have  seen  ragmen  pelted  on  the  street 
by  inconsiderate  boys,  so  that  they  had 
to  flee  for  safety  from  their  persecutors. 
Into  the  tender  minds  of  children  the 
poison  of  intolerance  and  violence  is  in- 
stilled. When  lisping  childhood  grows 
white  with  passion  and  clenches  its  tiny 
white  hand  in  rage,  saying  “Me  kill  scab," 
it  bodes  ill  for  the  peace  of  society. 

Work  of  Desperadoes. 

Dr.  Roberts  explained  here  that  he 
discovered  later  that  these  deeds  were 
the  w'ork  of  desperadoes  not  connected 
with  the  union.  There  was  much  of 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

lawlessness,  he  said,  hut  it  cannot  be 
put  on  the  union.  The  conditions  which 
the  strike  brought  about  were  respon- 
sible for  much  of  the  trouble.  When 
a man  is  hungry,  the  doctor  said,  he 
becomes  desperate. 

Next  was  introduced  the  article  from 
the  Outlook  of  Nov.  8,  1902,  from  which 
the  following  is  culled; 

But  not  only  does  industrial  conflict 
drive  men  and  young  women  from  home, 
it  also  disturbs  social  peace  at  home  and 
sets  brother  against  brother  and  family 
against  family.  Two  men  who  left  their 
mother  country  together,  shared  the 
same  bed,  and  divided  equally  their  earn- 
ings, are  today  enemies — they  will  not 
exchange  the  time  of  day.  One  of  them 
went  to  work,  and  the  other  called  him 
“scab.”  This  opprobrious  epithet  sticks 
and  stings  most  virulently.  When  uttered 
it  means  social  ostracism,  and  for  it 
there  is  no  remedy.  There  is  no  sin  as 
grievous  as  “scabbing”  in  the  ethical 
code  of  these  workers.  Half  a dozen  wo- 
men, members  of  the  Ladies’  Aid  society 
of  one  of  the  churches,  were  talking  cf 
non-union  workers,  when  one  of  them 
said,  “I  could  look  at  scabs  hanged,”  and 
the  others  echoed  her  sentiment.  To  what 
extent  this  feeling  carries  men  was  il- 
lustrated in  Lansford.  Sharpe,  a union 
man,  who  was  shot  by  a deputy,  had  a 
funeral  such  as  was  never  witnessed  in 
that  town.  All  the  union  men  from  the 
mining  villages  came  to  pay  the  last 
tribute  of  respect  to  one  whom  they  con- 
sidered a martyr  for  the  cause.  The 
union  leaders  were  in  charge,  and  the 
procession  was  solemn  and  impressive. 
A few  weeks  after,  a non-union  Hungar- 
ian who  worked  was  accidentally  killed. 
On  the  day  of  the  funeral  the  undertaker 
could  not  get  a man  to  remove  his  re- 
mains from  the  house  to  the  funeral  car. 
His  fellow  countrymen  said,  “Him  die  a 
scab,  him  bury  a scab,”  and  to  a man 
they  kept  away  from  the  funeral. 

A soldier  on  horseback  was  on  a street 
of  one  of  our  towns  when  he  heard  the 
word,  “Scab!  scab!”  He  instantly  turned 
his  horse,  dismounted,  and  looked  for  the 
culprit.  He  returned  crestfallen  amid  the 
laughter  of  spectators,  for  the  criminal 
was  a parrot  which  belonged  to  one  cl 
the  miners. 

Not  for  a generation  will  the  enmities 
and  hatred  engendered  by  this  strike  die 
away.  Industrial  peace  is  in  sight,  but  it 
will  not  bring  peace  to  the  men  who  stood 
by  the  operators  in  this  emergency.  T1  e 
families  which  have  suffered  reproach  in 
the  la=t  few  months  will  not  be  restored 
to  favor.  Social  ostracism  will  remain 
■when  the  troops  are  gone  and  coal  pro- 
duced. A troop  of  young  men  standing 
on  the  street  corner  in  Shenandoah  dis- 
cussed the  treatment  of  “scabs”  when 
the  collieries  resumed.  “Yes,”  said  cne 
of  thym;  “we’ll  tend  to  them  good,”  and 
any  one  familiar  with  the  mines  knows 
what  that  means.  A young  lad  on  the 
Hazleton  mountains  calmly  outlined  a 
scheme  whereby  the  “scab”  could  be 
blown  to  pieces  by  powder.  The  lot  of 
these  men  who  exercise  their  natural 
right  to  work  will  be  a sad  one  for  mary 
days  to  come.  No  foreman  will  be  able  to 
protect  .them  from  the  hatred  of  union 
men. 

Schools  Are  Better. 

Mr.  Wolverton  closed  his  cross-ex- 
amination after  eliciting  testimony  to 
show  that  schools  are  better,  wages  of 
teachers  higher  and  school  terms 


4 

longer,  in  the  coal  district  of  Northum- 
berland county — Mr.  Wolverton’s  home 
county — than  in  the  agricultural  dis- 
tricts of  the  same  county;  that  the  bulk 
of  the  taxes  to  support  the  schools  in 
the  coal  towns,  such  as  Shamokin  and 
Mt.  Carmel,  are  paid  by  the  coal  com- 
panies, and  that  it  is  the  fault  of  the 
miners  themselves,  who  control  the 
school  management  in  such  places,  if 
there  is  no  enforcement  of  the  compul- 
sory education  law  requiring  children 
between  the  ages  of  6 and  16  to  attend 
school  until  they  have,  at  least,  ac- 
quired a knowledge  of  the  common 
English  branches. 

Francis  I.  Gowan,  counsel  for  the 
Lehigh  Valley  company,  called  Dr.  Rob- 
erts’ attention  to  some  palpably  erron- 
eous passages  in  the  transcript  of  his 
evidence  of  the  day  before  and  had  him 
make  corrections,  after  which  Major 
Everett  Warren,  of  this  city,  of  coun- 
sel for  the  Erie  company,  brought  out 

The  doctor  would  not  admit  that 
asthma  has  a tendency  to  prevent  con- 
sumption. He  hesitated  to  deny  it. 

Mr.  Torrey  brought  out  that  the  law 
requires  231  cubic  feet  per  minute  pure 
air  and  the  witness  admitted  this  to 
be  ample,  though  he  qualified  his  an- 
swer by  sailing  that  many  miners,  in  re- 
cesses, away  from  the  gangways  or 
air  courses,  do  not  get  all  the  air  the 
law  allows. 

Chairman  Gray  looking  over  the 
packed  room,  with  direct  ventilation  on 
one  side  only,  asked:  “How7  many 

cubic  feet  of  fresh  air  is  in  this  room, 
Doctor” 

Mr.  Torrey  asked  if  freedom  from 
consumption  was  not  peculiar  to  this 
region.  Dr.  O’Malley  admitted  it  was 
not  as  prevalent  as  it  is  in  some  places. 

In  answer  to  questions  by  Chairman 
Gray  as  to  health  of  iron  mill  workers 
who  are  subjected  to  sudden  and  ex- 
treme changes  of  temperature,  said 
they  have  acquired  a tolerance  of  these 
changes  and  are  in  a way  immune. 

About  the  Hospitals. 

Dr.  F.  P.  Lenahan,  of  Wilkes-Barre, 
was  next  called  for  the  miners’  side 
and  was  examined  by  Attorney  John 
Shea.  He  testified  that  the  hospitals 
of  Luzerne  county  expended,  last 
year  $77,696  for  maintenance,  and  of 
this  amount  the  coal  companies  con- 
tributed only  $5,500. 

In  the  last  five  years  the  Mercy  hos- 
pital at  Wilkes-Barre,  he  said,  had  re- 
ceived only  $576  dollars  from  coal  com- 
panies. Of  this  amount  $450,  all  that 
was  solicited,  was  given  by  the  Parrish 
Coal  company,  which  has  been  espec- 
ially liberal  in  donations  to  all  the  hos- 
pitals. The  balance  was  donated  by 
the  Susquehanna  Coal  company. 

Mercy  hospital,  last  year,  had  734  pa- 
tients and  the  Wilkes-Barre  city  hospi- 
tal 940  patients,  and  eighty  per  cent,  of 
these  were  miners  and  members  of 
miners’  families. 

Fully  ninety-eight  percent  of  the  mine 
workers,  the  doctor  said,  were  anaemic 
and  ninety  per  cent,  of  them  who  are 


48 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


fifty  years  of  age  are  afflicted  with 
rheumatism.  The  doctor  had  heard  of 
asthmatic  miners  expectorating-  coal 
dust  twenty  years  after  he  leaves  the 
mines. 

Summing  up,  the  doctor  said  mining 
was  a very  unhealthy  occupation. 

Dr.  Lenahan  was  cross-examined  by 
Major  Everett  Warren,  of  this  city,  of 
counsel  for  the  Erie  company.  Major 
Warren  first  brought  out  that  the  Lu- 
zerne county  hospitals  receive  large  ap- 


propriations from  the  state  and  that 
the  bulk  of  the  state  taxes  are  paid  by 
the  corporations. 

The  doctor  further  stated  in  answer 
to  Major  Warren’s  questions  that  he 
has  treated  cases  of  asthma  in  men 
thirty  years  of  age  and  sixty-three 
years  of  age;  that  few  miners  leave  the 
mines  to  go  into  some  other  employ- 
ment; that  those  who  do  go  into  other 
laborious  occupations  as  a rule  give 
them  up  and  go  back  to  the  mines,  de- 


claring they  prefer  to  work  under- 
ground. 

Dr.  Richard  H.  Gibbons,  of  Scranton, 
was  called  to  the  stand  for  the  miners 
a few  minutes  befor  4 o’clock,  and  was 
being  cross-examined  by  Attorney 
James  Lenahan  at  adjournment.  Only 
a few  preliminary  questions  had  been 
asked  the  witness  twhen  the  commis- 
sion rose. 


Proceedings  of  Friday,  Nov.  21. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  22.] 


Negotiations  for  the  settlement  of 
the  matters  in  dispute  between  the  op- 
erators and  miners,  by  agreement,  are 
now  on. 

The  miners  have  been  offered  a ten 
per  cent,  advance  in  wages,  a nine- 
hour  day,  yearly  contracts  between 
each  company  and  its  own  employes, 
and  conferences  yearly  ’between  com- 
pany officials  and  a committee  of  em- 
ployes to  adjust  grievances. 

The  miners’  demands  substantially 
were: 

First — Twenty  per  cent,  increase  in 
wages. 

Second — Eight-hour  day. 

Third — Weighing  of  coal,  where  prac- 
ticable. 

Fourth — Recognition  of  the  union. 

The  operators  offer  the  following; 

First — Ten  per  cent,  increase  in 
wages. 

Second — Nine-hour  day. 

Third — Contracts  between  each  com- 
pany and  its  own  employes. 

Fourth — Conferences  for  adjustment 
of  grievances. 

The  miners  agree  to  negotiate  on  this 
basis,  with  the  understanding  that  the 
weighing  of  coal  is  an  open  question. 
They  will  waive  the  demand  for  recog- 
nition of  the  union,  but  will  stand  out 
for  a fifteen  per  cent,  increase  in 
wages. 

In  return  the  operators  will  demand 
that  duly  accredited  representatives  of 
all  the  miners  shall  give  some  guaran- 
tee of  a cessation  of  petty  strikes  and 
thla,t/  non-union  men  shall  not  be  mo- 
lested. 

The  commission  adjourned  yesterday 
at  noon,  for  the  ostensible  purpose  of 
givijng  the  opposing  parties  time  to 
agree  on  what  facts  they  can  agree  are 
not  in  dispute,  thereby  saving  the  com- 
mission time  and  labor,  but  the  real 
purpose  was  it;o  give  the  parties  oppor- 
tunity -to  come  together  and  eliminate 
every  matter  in  dispute  and  leave  the 
commission  with  nothing  to  do  but 
malke1  recommendations  for  the  avoid- 
ance of  future  controversy. 

On  Wednesday,  Hon.  Wayne  Mac 
Veagh  went  to  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia. He  returned  Thursday.  That 
might,  he,  Chairman  E.  B.  Thomas,  of 
the  Erie  board  of  directors,  and  Clar- 


ence S.  Darrow,  leading  counsel  for  the 
miners’  side,  had  a conference  at  Hotel 
.Termyn,  which  lasted  until  midnight. 
Mr.  MacVeagh,  went  to  New  York 
again  yesterday  and  it  was  thought 
would  return  last  night.  He  did  not 
come,  however. 

Just  prior  to  the  noon  recess  hour, 
yesterday,  Mr.  Darrow  addressed  the 
commission  and  making  an  admission 
that  the  miners  had  only  fragmentary 
evidence  to  offer  as  to  the  matter  of 
wages,  suggested  that  an  adjournment 
be  had  to  give  opportunity  to  the  ac- 
countants of  both  sides  to  work  ion  the 
companies’  statistics  with  a view  of 
agreeing  on  what  facts  woud  not  be 
disputed  and  saving  thereby  a great 
amount  tof  labor  and  time. 

The  commission  was  expecting  the 
motion.  Chairman  Gray  had  before 
him  some  typewritten  manuscript  and 
from  this  he  read  as  follows: 

“Having  said  so1  much  and  acceding 
to  the  suggestion  made  by  you  that 
this  time  be  taken  for  the  preparation 
of  the  documentary  evidence  and  for  a 
possible  agreement  as  to  facts  and  fig- 
ures which  would  forward  the  work  of 
the  commission,  the  commission  desire 
to  express  the  hope  that  an  effort  will 
be  made  by  the  parties  to  come  to  an 
agreement  upon  nearly  all,  if  not  all. 
the  matters  now  in  controversy,  as 
well  as  upon  these  documentary  facts 
and  figures,  and  that  they  will  adopt 
the  suggestion  heretofore  made  by  the 
commission  to  counsel  on  both  sides 
that  we  would  aid  them  in  such  effort 
by  our  conciliatory  offices.  It  seems  to 
us  that  many  of  the  conditions  com- 
plained of.  and  which  have  been  the 
subject  of  our  careful  study  and  ex- 
amination, might  be  better  remedied 
by  the  parties  to  the  controversy  ap- 
proaching the  subject  in  a proper 
spirit,  and  with  the  purpose  of  fairly 
adjusting  them.  We  hope,  therefore, 
gentlemen,  that  the  interval  of  time 
that  is  now  proposed  may  be  availed 
of  with  this  end  in  view.  Of  course, 
in  the  meantime  we  shall  proceed  with 
the  work  before  us  as  we  have  begun 
it.’’ 

Attorney  John  T.  Lenahan,  who  with 
Joseph  O’Brien  represents  the  non- 
union men.  opposed  adjourning  till  to- 


morrow, as  he  wished  to  cross-examine 
Rev.  Dr.  Roberts,  who  was  then  in  the 
witness  box.  Judge  Gray  consulted 
with  the  other  commissioners  for  a mo- 
ment and  then  announced  that  an  af- 
ternoon session  would  be  held  to  permit 
of  this  cross-examination.  As  the  com- 
missioners were  rising,  attorneys  for 
the  big  companies  hurried  to  Mr.  Lena- 
han’s  side  and  talked  with  him  in  low 
tones.  Mr.  Lenahan  disappeared  into 
the  commissioners’  consulting  room, 
and,  a few  moments  later,  Colonel 
Moseley,  the  assistant  recorder,  re- 
turned and  asked  the  attorneys  to 
wait  to  hear  something  Judge  Gray 
had  to  communicate.  Judge  Gray  fol- 
lowed closely  and  announced  that  Mr. 
Lenahan  being  content  to  postpone  his 
cross-examination  of  Dr.  Roberts  un- 
til this  morning,  the  commission  would 
not  meet  in  the  afternoon. 

The  Cause  of  It. 

One  of  the  primal  factors  in  bringing 
about  the  negotiations  for  amicable  ad- 
justment was  the  inability  of  the 
miners  to  produce  acceptable  testimony 
on  the  question  of  wages,  and  the  de- 
sire of  the  companies  to  be  saved  the 
necessity  of  presenting  what  they  have 
to  offer  on  this  subject. 

If  forced  to  do  it,  the  companies  pro- 
posed to  put  in  evidence  a great  mass 
of  figures  showing  what  they  pay  in 
wages;  what  they  secure  in  profits,  and 
how  it  is  unwarranted  that  the  com- 
mission should  compel  them  to  grant 
anything  like  the  miners  are  demand- 
ing. 

It  is  not  but  that  they  are  satisfied 
the  commission  and  the  public  would 
have  to  admit  from  a study  of  these 
figures  that  the  miners’  demands  are 
exorbitant,  but  that  they  may  avoid  the 
distasteful  and  laborious  task  of  parad- 
ing these  matters,  that  the  operators 
came  to  the  point  of  entering  upon 
these  negotiations. 

On  the  miners’  side  the  attorneys 
were  confronted  with  the  alternative  of 
accepting  the  operators’  compilations 
as  the  evidence  on  which  the  commis- 
sioners should  base  their  findings  as  to 
wages,  or  of  resting  this  feature  of  the 
case  on  such  fragmentary  testimony  as 
would  be  adducable  from  the  compara- 
tively few  mine  workers — say  even  a 
hundred— the  commission  could  in  rea- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


son  be  asked  to  listen  to,  or  such  fig- 
ures as  might  be  compiled  from  the 
“due  bills”  they  were  able  to  gather, 
which,  it  now  develops,  were  of  little 
use  to  them  because  few  miners  were 
found  who  had  preserved  them  con- 
secutively for  any  considerable  period. 
In  other  words,  the  miners’  lawyers 
realized  that  for  every  individual  case 
they  might  present  of  a miner  having 
little  or  even  nothing  coming  to  them 
at  the  end  of  a month,  the  companies 
would  produce  another  case  of  another 
miner  making  more  than  a hundred 
dollars  a month. 

Source  of  Figures. 

While  on  the  stand  yesterday,  Rev. 
Dr.  Roberts  testified  that  his  figures  as 
to  miners’  earnings  were  derived  from 
averaging  about  five  hundred  “due 
bills”  gathered  from  all  portions  of  the 
region.  Judge  Gray  practically  told 
him  the  commission  would  find  little  to 
aid  it  from  that  sort  of  statistics. 

These  are  only  the  main  motives 
prompting  the  negotiations  for  settle- 
ment. Various  other  matters  entered 
into  the  situation,  which  at  a time  like 
this  it  is  unnecessary  to  enumerate. 
Suffice  it  to  say  in  a summing  up  that 
both  sides  are  anxious  for  a settlement 
outside  of  the  commission  and  that 
each  is  in  a position  to  ask  that  the 
other  shall  not  consider  itself  licensed 
to  dictate  terms. 

It  was  when  the  examination  of  the 
miners’  medical  experts  and  the  re- 
direct examination  of  Rev.  Dr.  Roberts 
had  been  concluded  at  12.15  p.  m.,  that 
the  continuance  for  settlement  propo- 
sition was  advanced.  The  discussion 
was  as  follows: 

Mr.  Darrow:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have 
been  at  considerable  disadvantage  and 
had  considerable  difficulty  in  getting  the 
exact  dates  and  exact  figures  which 
I know  this  commission  wants.  Of 
course,  you  gentlemen  can  realize  it 
largely.  I must  say  that  when  I came 
down  to  this  region  I supposed  it  would 
he  an  easier  matter  to  find  out  the  exao* 
amounts  paid  for  wages  in  these  indus- 
tries: but  enough  has  developed  here  to 
show  that  there  are  scarcely  two  mines 
where  the  wages  are  the  same,  and  per- 
haps in  each  mine  there  are  different 
wags  paid.  So,  to  get  at  the  exact  proof 
is  very  difficult.  On  our  side,  all  we 
have  is  to  get  the  due  bills  of  the 
miners,  running  over  a series  of  years. 
Those  are  very  imperfectly  preserved; 
we  can  only  get  them  fragmentary,  and 
when  we  get  them  we  are  not  certain 
that  thy  give  exact  figures;  that  is, 
some  months  may  be  smaller  and  some 
larger,  and  they  may  be  sorted.  The  only 
exact  information  we  can  get  is  from 
the  companies’  books.  Each  one  of  these 
companies  had  said  to  us  here  in  open 
court  that  it  will  give  us  all  its  figures, 
and  I know  that  they  have  large  num- 
bers of  men  at  work  on  them,  and  that 
they  are  not  yet  ready.  I think  it  would 
expedite  the  work  of  this  commission  if 
we  examine  those  figures,  or  our  experts 
examine  them,  privately,  and  see  how 
far  we  can  agree  with  them  as  to  the 
exact  facts,  and  it  would  require  a little 
time  for  that  purpose.  We  are  working 
here,  day  after  day,  and  it  is  very  hard 
to  do  it,  and  it  is  not  conducive  to  any 


good  to  put  in  secondary  facts  that  are 
more  or  less  uncertain,  when  we  can  get 
at  the  exact  facts.  So,  I think  it  would 
be  wise  to  have  a little  time  granted  to 
go  over  their  books  and  see  how  far  we 
can  agree— I think  we  can  agree— and 
eliminate  a large  number  of  questions 
which  is  taking  up  time.  We  would  like 
an  adjournment  for  some  little  time  for 
that  purpose. 

Chairman’s  Suggestion. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Darrow,  the  com- 
mission would  be  glad  to  co-operate  with 
you  to  bring  about  the  accomplishment 
of  that  end.  While  the  testimony,  in  it- 
self, has  been  very  interesting,  and  I will 
not  say  it  has  not  been  of  value  to  the 
commission,  still  it  has  not  yet  borne 
practically  upon  the  points  at  issue  be- 
tween the  parties  to  this  controversy, 
and  the  commission  desire  to  assist  in 
any  project  such  as  you  have  outlined 
that  will  shorten  the  labor  of  investiga- 
tion; that  is,  shorten  it,  not  so  much 
for  our  comfort  as  for  the  opportunity 
that  it  will  give  us  to  clearly  get  at  the 
facts  without  embarrassment  of  needless 
detail.  It  was  suggested  at  Washington 
at  the  first  hearing,  when  counsel  were 
present,  that  this  should  be  done  and 
that  the  counsel  on  both  sides  would  co- 
operate to  that  end  in  order  that  data 
that  were  indisputable  might  be  put  be- 
fore us  and  all  contests  about  them 
eliminated,  and  if  any  contest  at  all 
should  remain  it  would  be  confined  to 
those  matters  about  which  you  could  not 
agree,  if  such  there  should  prove  to  be. 
T have  not  had  an  opportunity  of  con- 
sulting with  the  commission  as  to  the 
time  we  should  give  for  this,  nor  do  I 
know  that  you  have  suggested  any  par- 
ticular time;  but  we  will  co-operate  with 
you  to  that  end,  and  we  will  adjourn  un- 
til tomorrow,  so  that  we  may  know  cer- 
tainly tomorrow  what  time  will  be  re- 
quired. 

Mr.  Darrow;  We  can  ascertain  more 
definitely  about  that  by  tomorrow  morn- 
ing. 

The  Chairman:  By  that  time  we  can 
form  a more  definite  idea,  by  discussion, 
and  so  on,  of  the  time  that  will  be  re- 
quired. We  do  not  want  to  waste  any 
time,  of  course,  but  we  wish  to  give 
sufficient  time  for  the  investigation  of 
these  figures,  which,  after  all,  is  the  im- 
portant matter. 

Mr.  Darrow.  To  be  sure: 

The  Chairman:  Having  said  so  much, 
and  acceding  to  the  suggestion  made  by 
you  that  this  time  be  taken  for  the  pre- 
paration of  the  documentary  evidence, 
and  for  a possible  agreement  as  to  facts 
and  figures  which  would  for-T<=rd  the 
v/ork  of  the  commission,  the  coi.._  "fission 
desire  to  express  the  hope  that  an  eu'ort 
will  be  made  by  the  parties  to  come  to 
an  agreement  upon  nearly  all,  if  not  all, 
the  matters  now  in  controversy,  as  well 
as  upon  these  documentary  facts  ard 
figures,  and  that  they  will  adopt  the 
suggestion  heretofore  made  by  the  com- 
mission to  counsel  on  both  sides,  that  we 
would  aid  them  in  such  effort  by  our 
conciliatory  offices.  It  seems  to  us,  that 
many  of  the  conditions  complained  of, 
and  which  have  been  the  subject  of  our 
careful  study  and  examination,  might  be 
better  remedied  by  the  parties  to  the 
controversy  approaching  the  subject  in  a 
proper  spirit,  and  with  the  purpose  of 
fairly  adjusting  them.  We  hope,  there- 
i ore,  gentlemen,  that  the  interval  of 
time  that  i3  now  proposed  may  be  availed 
of  with  this  end  in  view.  Of  course,  in 


49 


the  meantime,  we  shall  proceed  with  the 
work  before  us  as  we  have  begun  it. 

Had  It  in  Mind. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I would  like  to  say  for 
myself,  frankly,  that  that  matter  has 
been  running  in  my  mind  for  the  last 
few  days.  It  Is  a very  serious  undertak- 
ing tor  this  commission  to  ascertain  the 
exact  wages  paid  to  each  mine  operated 
throughout  this  region,  and,  as  we  met 
here  day  after  day,  and  got  better  ac- 
quainted, and  with  a fair  feeling  towards 
each  other,  it  seems  to  me  there  ought 
to  be  hope  of  our  accomplishing  this, 
with  the  aid  of  this  commission.  I do 
not  suppose  it  would  be  very  wise  to  do 
it  without  its  aid.  It  is  certainly  very 
much  better  for  everybody  interested  in 
the  country  in  general,  and,  so  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  we  will  do  everything  we 
can  between  now  and  the  next  session. 

The  Chairman:  I will  only  say  now 
that  the  commission  will  be  very  glad  to 
aid  in  obtaining  any  such  result. 

Mr.  Warren:  I do  not  understand  that 
My.  Darrow  made  any  suggestion  as  to 
time? 

The  Chairman:  No,  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Warren:  May  I be  permitted, 

speaking  for  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  com- 
pany and  the  Hillside  Coal  and  Iron 
company  to  say  that  we  find  it  exceed- 
ingly difficult  to  gather  the  facts.  We 
have  had  thirty  or  forty  men  at  work 
for  two  weeks  at  nothing  else,  so  as  to 
he  able  to  do  that  which  the  commission 
suggested  at  Washington  we  do,  and  that 
which  we  are  desirous  ourselves  of  doing, 
and  that  is,  to  submit  to  the  commission 
and  counsel  on  the  other  wise  the  result 
of  our  investigation  fairly  and  complete- 
ly. I would  like  to  suggest  that  if  the 
other  companies  are  in  anything  like  the 
situation  we  are  in — we  are  doing  every- 
thing we  can  to  speed  the  getting  to- 
gether of  the  facts  and  figures — we  ought 
to  have  at  least  a week,  if  not  ten  days. 
Mr.  Brownell  and  myself  have  been  at 
work  on  this  nights,  without  our  auditor 
and  a corps  of  men  he  has  with  him.  and 
it  seems  to  be  an  almost  interminable 
job.  I do  not  believe  there  is  a member 
of  the  commission  who  has  any  appre- 
ciation of  what  it  means— considering  the 
fact  that  we  have  twenty  or  thirty  col- 
lieries with  every  conceivable  kind  of 
labor,  thirty  kinds  of  labor  and  thirty 
different  sorts  of  computations  to  get  at 
these  figures.  You  say  you  are  desirous 
of  speeding  the  matter,  and  of  course 
we  are  too,  but  I want  to  ask  you  in 
the  name  of  these  companies  to  be  rea- 
sonable enough  to  give  us  this  time,  at 
least  a week  anyway,  and  we  believe 
that  at  the  end  of  that  time  we  can  sub- 
mit the  result  of  the  examination  of  our 
statistician  and  give  figures  that  will 
throw  light  on  the  subject,  and  then  we 
can  proceed  with  actual  facts  and  not 
theories. 

Better  to  Adjourn. 

The  Chairman:  I said  in  reply  to  Mr. 

Darrow’s  suggestion  that  as  the  commis- 
sion had  not  considered  the  matter  of 
how  much  time  might  be  necessary,  and 
I could  not  decide  it  for  them  without 
consultation,  that  it  would  be  better, 
perhaps,  to  adjourn  until  tomorrow 
morning  at  10  o’clock — the  usual  time — 
and  we  will  be  in  a better  condition  then, 
a better  situation  perhaps,  to  discuss  the 
matter  of  time.  We  are  disposed,  I think 
I can  say  for  all  the  commission,  to  give 
you  all  the  time  that  is  necessary  for 
this  important  work. 

Mr.  Warren:  I got  the  Impression  that 


50 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


you  Intended  to  adjourn  until  tomorrow, 
and  that  upon  meeting  tomorrow  morn- 
ing you  would  fix  the  time,  and  I wanted 
the  commission  to  have  some  idea  of 
how  we  are  situated. 

The  Chairman:  We  will  not  fix  it  with- 
out suggestions,  from  counsel  on  brth 
sides.  Will  you  have  any  other  wit- 
nesses. Mr.  Darrow? 

Mr.  Darrow:  I would  prefer  to  use  this 
afternoon  for  the  matter  spoken  of  and 
not  have  any  session  this  afternoon. 

The  Chairman:  And  you  suggest  that 
we  adjourn  now  until  tomorrow  morning? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes,  sir,  until  tomorrow 
morning  at  10  o’clock. 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  I desire  to  ask 
Doctor  Roberts  some  questions. 

The  Chairman:  We  can  adjourn  then 

until  2 o’clock.  We  will  then  stand  ad- 
journed until  2 o’clock. 
********* 

The  Chairman  (after  a conference  with 
several  gentlemen):  Since  the  announce- 
ment that  we  would  take  a recess  Mr. 
Lenahan  has  said  that  he  profers  not  to 
go  on  this  afternoon  and  therefore  we 
will  adjourn  until  tomorrow  morning  at 
10  o’clock. 

Without  any  preliminary  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  morning  opened  with 
the  resumption  of  the  direct  examin- 
ation of  Dr.  Richard  H.  Gibbons,  of 
this  city,  by  Attorney  James  Lenahan, 
of  counsel  for  the  miners. 

The  doctor  described  in  detail  the  dis- 
eases peculiar  to  mine  workers,  the 
causes  thereof  and  the  effect  gener- 
ally on  the  su^erer.  An  adult  who 
in  childhood  suffered  from  any  bron- 
chial trouble,  the  doctor  said,  is  pre- 
disposed to  such  an  extent  to  miners’ 
asthma  that  he  should  not  be  allowed 
to  work  in  the  mines. 

Neglect  of  diet,  exposure  to  cold  and 
dampness,  strained  positions,  great 
muscular  effort,  sudden  changes  of  tem- 
perature, he  said,  bring  on  neuralgia 
and  various  forms  of  rheumatism. 
Among  the  interested  listeners  there 
was  a mild  titter  as  the  witness  men- 
tioned “gout”  as  one  of  the  diseases  to 
which  miners  are  subject. 

Not  Able  to  Pay. 

After  bringing  out  from  Dr.  Gibbons 
that  he  has  made  a special  study 
of  surgery  for  thirty  years  and  that  he 
has  attended  many  cases  of  injury  by 
burns,  blasts,  falls,  and  the  like,  had 
him  tell  of  the  frequency  and  serious- 
ness of  these  hurts. 

The  doctor  said  he  never  expected  to 
get  any  pay  from  the  average  miner, 
not  because  the  miner  was  not  always 
willing  to  pay,  but  because,  in  the 
doctor’s  opinion,  the  miner  is  not  able 
to  pay. 

The  mine  ambulance  was  severely 
arraigned  by  Dr.  Gibbons.  They  are 
crude,  cold  and  unsanitary,  the  doctor 
declared.  The  fact  that  they  are  housed 
generally  in  the  mine  stables  is,  in  it- 
self, enough  to  condemn  it. 

The  doctor,  immediately  recommend- 
ed that  miners  should  be  schooled  in 
“First  Aid  to  the  Injured.”  About 
twenty  years  ago,  he  said,  he  undertook 
to  inaugurate  a movement  for  such  ed- 
ucation, but  received  no  encouragement. 
“jMy  medical  brethren,”  said  the  doc- 


tor, “were  those  who  discouraged  me 
most.” 

Speaking  of  the  character  of  fractures 
from  mine  accidents,  the  witness  said, 
that  Dr.  Agnew  once  told  him  the  worst 
fractures  he  ever  saw  came  from  the 
anthracite  coal  regions. 

When  Mr.  Torrey  took  the  witness 
in  hand  for  cross-examination,  he  asked 
“Doctor,  did  you  ever  write  a book?” 

It  was  the  biggest  hit  of  the  hearings. 
No  one  laughed  with  more  heartiness 
than  the  commissioners. 

The  doctor  said  he  had  never  written 
a book,  although  he  had  written  many 
articles  on  surgical  matters.  Mr.  Tor- 
rey picked  up  a pamphlet  and  began 
turning  over  its  pages  slowly.  Every- 
body was  expectant  of  a possible  rep- 
etition of  the  incident  of  the  day  be- 
fore in  which  Dr.  Roberts  and  his  book 
were  the  principal  features.  It  devel- 
oped, however,  that  Mr.  Torrey  was 
“just  joking.” 

On  cross-examination  Mr.  Torrey 
brought  out  that  the  Green  Ridge  Coal 
company’s  ambulance  is  being  used  by 
the  Lackawanna  hospital,  temporarily, 
while  the  hospital  ambulance  is  being 
repaired;  that  within  a year  emer- 
gency hospitals  have  been  established 
by  law  at  all  the  mines,  w'hich  are  pro- 
vided with  everything  required  for 
temporarily  treating  accident  cases,  and 
that  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  and 
other  companies  send  doctors  about  to 
their  mines  to  educate  the  bosses  and 
others  in  “First  Aid  to  the  Injured.” 

Dr.  Gibbons,  before  leaving  the  stand, 
took  another  fall  out  of  the  mine  am- 
bulance, declaring  it  to  be  a veritable 
bunch  of  infection. 

It  Ages  a Man. 

Dr.  Eugene  J.  Butler,  of  Wilkes-Barre, 
physician  of  the  Central  Poor  district, 
by  cross-examination  that  in  framing 
a report  of  a non-fatal  accident  the 
mine  inspector  can,  and  usually  does, 
question  the  injured  man;  that  the  law 
requires  the  inspector  to  attend  all  in- 
quests in  cases  of  mine  fatalities;  that 
the  mine  inspector  is  appointed  on  the 
recommendation  of  a board  of  five,  ap- 
pointed by  the  president  judge,  three 
of  which  five  are  actual  mine  workers: 
and  that  an  inspector  is  in  no  way 
allied  with  the  companies. 

Major  Warren  secured  an  admission 
from  the  witness  that  as  a rule  a miner 
gets  through  his  work  before  noon- 
time, and  that  a large  percentage  of 
mine  accidents  are  attributable  to  the 
anxiety  of  the  miner  to  get  out  from 
his  work  earlier  than  this  hour.  Major 
Warren  asked  if  fifty  per  cent,  would 
not  be  a fair  estimate.  The  witness 
thought  it  was  not  as  large  as  that. 

General  Counsel  David  Willcox,  of 
the  Delaware  and  Hudson  company, 
called  Dr.  Roberts’ 'attention  to  his  tes- 
timony of  the  day  before,  to  the  effect 
that  he  found  twenty-four  boys,  under 
the  legal  age,  working  in  the  breakers 
or  mines,  of  the  Olyphant  region,  and 
inquired  if  the  witness  had  taken  any 
steps  to  remedy  this  evil.  The  doctor 


replied  that  one  clergyman  who  brought 
prosecutions  for  this  offense  had  the 
costs  put  on  him.  The  witness  ad- 
mitted he  had  not  notified  the  employ- 
ers of  his  discoveries  in  this  matter. 
He  said  he  attributed  the  working  of 
these  young  boys  to  the  fact  that  their 
parents  were  hard  pressed  for  maney 
to  pay  off  mortgages.  In  many  cases, 
he  said,  the  mine  boys  who  are  under 
age  are  the  sole  support  of  widowed 

mothers. 

Further  Cross-Examination. 

Mr.  Willcox,  general  counsel  for  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company,  re- 
sumed the  cross-examination  of  Dr. 
Roberts  at  the  opening  of  the  after- 
noon session. 

Still  further  readings  from  the  doc- 
tor’s book  showed  that  as  a result  of 
his  investigations  he  found  that  the 
veins  varied  in  every  feature  in  the 
different  basins;  that  conditions  at 
present  are  very  unfavorable,  compara- 
tively speaking,  because  of  the  great 
depth  of  the  shafts,  length  of  hauls  and 
the  like;  that  the  fixing  of  a “minimum 
wage”  by  legislation  would  be  vicious 
and  disastrous;  that  it  would  be  a 
matter  of  ease  to  multiply  cases  of 
gross  neglect  on  the  part  of  miners,  re- 
sulting from  their  desire  to  save  time, 
labor  or  expense;  that  when  boys  under 
12  years  are  employed  it  is  because  of 
the  wilful  perjury  of  the  parents;  that 
it  is  bad  reasoning  on  the  part  of  the 
miners  to  claim  any  share  of  the  profits 
of  washery  product,  as  the  miners  re- 
ceived pay  for  his  part  in  producing  it 
when  he  was  paid  for  mining  it. 

The  witness  took  occasion  to  modify 
a declaration  of  one  of  his  articles  read 
"earlier  in  the  day,  that  a “minimum” 
rate  of  wages  was  inexpedient  and 
socialistic.  He  now  considers  it  expedi- 
ent, he  said,  and  is  willing  to  adopt 
socialism  to  the  extent  of  declaring  for 
the  fixing  of  a minimum  wage  rate. 

In  response  to  a question  by  Com- 
missioner Parker,  Dr.  Roberts  stated 
that  the  majority  of  the  Olyphant  chil- 
dren working  in  the  mines  who  are 
under  the  legal  age  are  the  necessary 
support  of  their  families. 

At  this  juncture,  Mr.  Darrow  with- 
drew Dr.  Roberts  temporarily,  to  ac- 
commodate some  of  the  physicians  who 
are  to  testify  for  the  miners,  and  who 
are  anxious  to  get  away. 

Dr.  John  O’Malley,  of  this  city,  who 
has  had  nineteen  years’  experience  in 
this  region,  was  called  and  examined 
by  Attorney  James  Lenahan. 

Dr.  O’Malley  told  that  diseases  com- 
mon among  miners  are  acute  and 
chronic  catarrh,  rheumatism  and 
miners’  asthma.  The  latter  disease, 
which  is  very  common,  results  from 
the  inhalation  of  fine  particles  of  coal 
dust,  which  are  constant  irritants  of 
the  membranes.  Post-mortem  exami- 
nations have  frequently  shown  to  him 
the  lungs  of  miners  as  black  as  an- 
thracite coal.  The  disease,  though  in- 
curable. is  fatal  only  in  very  slight  de- 
gree, but  it  has  a tendency  to  superin- 
duce fatal  diseases. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


51 


Affects  the  Heart. 

The  disease  also  affects  the  heart 
nutrition  and  causes  emaciation  and 
general  loss  of  vitality.  Very  few  mine 
workers  can  escape  at  least  a mild  af- 
fectation of  this  complaint.  The  in- 
halation of  noxious  gases  also  con- 
tributes to  asthma.  A man  of  forty 
years  affected  with  chronic  asthma  is 
really  as  cld  and  decrepit  as  a com- 
paratively healthy  man  would  be  at 
seventy. 

The  sudden  changes  of  temperature 
experienced  by  miners  is  conducive  to 
catarrh.  Stomach  troubles  among  min- 
ers, the  doctor  ascribed  to  their  being 
compelled  to  drink  water  impregnated 
with  deleterious  mineral  matter.  Rheu- 
matism is  superinduced  by  the  damp- 
ness of  the  mines.  Lumbago  results 
from  the  crouched  position  in  which 
the  miner  has  to  work.  Tubercular 
diseases  are  common  among  miners  and 
are  due  to  lack  of  nutrition  resulting 
from  other  diseases.  All  these  diseases 
are  decidedly  more  prevalent  among 
miners  than  among  other  classes  of 
the  community. 

On  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Torrey, 
of  counsel  for  the  Delaware  and  Hud- 
son, Dr.  O’Malley  admitted  he  had 
never  made  a comparison  of  particular 
diseases  of  miners  with  particular  dis- 
eases of  other  classes  of  workmen.  He 
also  admitted  he  had  not  examined  the 
records  of  the  health  bureau  here,  wifh 
a view  of  getting  statistics.  The  wit- 
ness could  recall  the  names  of  only  two 
miners  he  treated  for  asthma  during 
the  past  year  and  a half,  although  he 
was  sure  there  were  many  more  than 
that. 

Amount  of  Air. 

Mr.  Torrey  brought  an  admission 
from  the  witness  that  whooping  cough 
is  a form  of  asthma  and  that  whooping 
cough  patients  are  frequently  taken 
into  the  mines  as  a treatment  for  the 
disease.  A diminuition  of  the  amount 


of  asthmatic  diseases,  the  doctor  ad- 
mitted, is  resulting  from  the  better  ven- 
tilation of  the  mines  during  the  past 
ten  or  fifteen  years. 

of  Luzerne,  was  examined  by  Attorney 
John  Shea,  of  counsel  for  the  miners. 
He  testified  along  substantially  the 
same  line  as  the  preceding  doctors 
and  in  addition  told  that  a miner  of 
fifty  years  looks  as  if  he  was  sixty-five 
or  seventy  years  of  age.  He  also  told 
of  having  secured  a job  for  four  old 
miners  on  a farm  in  Lehman  township 
and  of  the  former  discharging  them  be- 
cause “they  had  no  lungs  and  while 
they  were  might  good  eaters  they  were 
very  poor  workers.” 

Bishop  Spalding  asked  the  witness 
how  long  the  old  miners  last  after  they 
give  up  mine  work,  and  go  back  to  the 
breaker.  “Not  very  long,”  replied  the 
witness. 

A.  H.  McClintock,  attorney  for  the 
Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre  company 
cross-examined  Dr.  Butler.  Among  the 
things  Mr.  McClintock  developed  was 
the  fact  that  Dr.  Butler  himself  worked 
in  the  mines  from  the  time  he  was  ten 
years  of  age  until  nineteen.  Dr.  But- 
ler is  a fine,  big,  healthy  looking  man. 
Judge  Gray  remarked,  “You  are  a pret- 
ty healthy  looking  ex-miner.” 

The  re-direct  examination  of  Dr. 
Roberts  was  then  taken  up.  A buzz, 
followed  by  a deep  hush  accompanied 
the  witness  as  he  passed  from  the  min- 
ers’ table  to  the  witness  box.  Picking 
up  Dr.  Roberts’  now  noted  book,  Mr. 
Darrow  remarked:  “I  want  to  read  a 

few  things  the  gentleman  of  the  other 
side  evidently  overlooked.”  He  then 
began  to  read  cullings  from  the  book 
in  which  the  doctor  expressed  opinions 
or  stated  facts. 

In  these  excepts  it  was  set  forth  that 
intelligent  co-operation  for  self-help  by 
the  miners  is  desirable;  that  wages 
have  been  steadily  reduced  for  twenty 
years  by  the  reduction  or  total  cutting 
off  of  allowances  for  extra  work,  and 
like  incidentals;  that  collective  bar- 


gaining is  expedient,  and  desirable; 
that  recognition  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  is  only  prevented  by  preju- 
dice and  pride  on  the  part  of  the  oper- 
ators; that  operators  are  unreasonably' 
hostile  to  the  union,  and  that  the  coal 
operator  millionaires  are  accountable 
for  setting  a bad  example  to  the  people 
by  their  lack  of  unselfishness  in  the  use 
of  their  wealth. 

Would  Hot  Give  Names. 

On  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Willcox, 
the  witness  declined  to  give  the  names 
of  any  selfish  millionaire  coal  operators 
lie  had  in  mind  when  he  wrote  the 
book,  or  to  tell  of  any  instance  where 
allowances  were  cut  off  as  he  described. 

To  a question  by  Mr.  Ross,  the  wit- 
ness said  he  believed  a coal  syndicate 
would  be  a good  thing  for  the  miners. 

In  response  to  some  general  questions, 
Dr.  Roberts  said  a great  industrial  war 
like  the  strike  is  naturally  attended 
writh  intemperate  words  and  violence. 
Collective  bargaining  and  conciliatory 
boards,  he  said,  would  prevent  strikes. 
Annual  wages  for  the  last  year,  the 
witness  declared,  was  not  sufficient  to 
maintain  an  American  standard  of  liv- 
ing. 

The  poor  boards  of  the  anthracite 
districts,  he  went  on  to  say,  report  that 
it  costs  $94  per  capita  to  maintain  the 
poor.  This  would  be  about  $475  a year 
for  a family  of  five.  The  doctor  ■would 
place  the  poverty  line  for  those  outside 
the  poor  houses  at  $100  above  this  fig- 
ure. He  further  declared  that  the  best 
information  was  to  the  effect  that  it 
costs  a family  of  five  in  the  coal  regions 
$655.22  a year  to  live,  not  counting  on 
anything  outside  of  necessities. 

From  figures  obtained  by  collecting 
about  five  hundred  “due  bills”  from  all 
parts  of  the  region,  he  calculated  that 
the  average  earnings  in  1900  of  miners 
was  between  $400  and  $450,  and  of 
miners’  helpers,  between  $375  and  $425. 
This  was  before  the  ten  per  cent,  ad- 
vance of  1900. 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Nov.  22. 

[ Hrom  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  24.] 


Independent  operators  to  the  number 
of  twenty-eight,  representing  practi- 
cally all  the  anthracite  region,  met  in 
their  headquarters  in  the  Connell 
building,  Saturday  night,  and  decided 
to  send  a committee  to  New  York  to- 
morrow to  have  an  understanding  with 
the  big  companies  as  to  where  the  in- 
dependents stand  in  the  negotiations 
for  amicable  settlement  of  the  strike 
issues. 

The  committee  consists  of  Hon.  W.  L. 
Connell,  of  the  Green  Ridge  Coal  com- 
pany, of  Scranton,  and  the  Enterprise 
Coal  company,  of  Shamokin;  J.  L. 
Cake,  of  the  Clear  Spring  Coal  com- 
pany and  Raub  Coal  company,  of 
Pittston;  J.  L.  Crawford,  of  the  Peo- 
ple’s Coal  company,  of  Scranton;  C. 
D.  Simpson,  of  the  West  End  Goal 


company,  of  Scranton;  E.  B.  Sturges, 
of  the  Pine  Hill  Coal  company,  of  Pine 
Hill;  Hon.  W.  W.  Watson,  of  the  Mt. 
Jessup  Coal  company  and  the  Moosic 
Mountain  Coal  company,  of  Scranton; 
H..C.  Reynolds,  of  the  Wyoming  Coal 
and  Land  company,  of  Scranton,  and 
Joseph  J.  Jermyn,  of  Jermyn  & Co., 
of  Scranton. 

The  arrangement  of  the  details  of 
the  meeting  with  the  coal  presidents 
wa.s  left  to  Mr.  Simpson.  It  is  likely 
the  meeting  will  take  place  tomorrow 
morning  st  the  office  of  one  of  the  big 
companies  in  New  York. 

It  is  understood  the  independents  will 
go  before  the  coal  road  presidents  with 
a determination  of  securing  assurance 
tha.t  if  the  strike  controversy  is  to  be 
settled  out  Gf  court,  the  big  .companies 


will  make  it  possible  for  the  independ- 
ents to  go  along  by  granting  them 
some  new  concessions  in  the  way  of 
freight  rates. 

The  independents  argue  that  their 
profits  are  regulated  by  the  carriers. 
They  have  no  source  of  income  other 
than  what  the  big  companies  allow 
them  for  coal.  The  big  companies  can 
grant  an  advance  in  wages  and  other 
concessions  to  the  miners  and  charge 
up  the  increase  partly  to  freight  prof- 
its and  partly  to  coal  profits.  The 
independents  must  bear  the  increase 
solelv  from  their  coal  profits. 

The  independents  in  common  with 
the  carriers,  declared  in  May  last  that 
they  could  not  grant  any  increase  in 
wages  to  the  miners.  They  still  hold 
to  that  Contention  and  stand  ready  to 


52 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


prove  it  before  the  commission.  To 
silently  acquiesce,  now,  in  the  big 
companies’  proposition  to  advance 
wages  would  be  to  confess  that,  in 
May  last,  they  told  what  was  not  an 
exact  fact. 

Conditions  Are  Unchanged. 

The  independents  maintain  that  what 
they  said  last  May  is  still  true,  and 
chat  if  the  big  companies  propose  to 
establish  a higher  rate  of  wages  for 
them  (the  independents),  it  is  up  to  the 
tig  companies  to  do  something  to  make 
it  possible  for  them  to  bear  the  in- 
crease. 

J.  L.  Crawford,  of  the  Independent 
Operators’  association,  said  Saturday 
evening: 

“Our  position  is  so  strong  that  we 
cannot  afford  to  agree  to  any  settle- 
ment reached  on  the  basis  arranged  by 
other  parties.  A carefully  prepared 
statement,  sworn  to,  will  be  submitted 
showing  that  our  average  rate  of  wages 
paid  is  $774.50.  Mr.  Mitchell  classed  $600 
as  a fair  living  wage. 

“We  do  not  intend  to  be  engineered 
out  of  court  by  any  means,  and  we  are 
not  going  to  change  our  views.  We  will 
submit  evidence  which  will  surprise  the 
commission.  We  intend  to  be  heard  be- 
fore the  commission,’’  he  declared,  “and 
we  are  going  to  maintain  that  posi- 
tion.” 

The  independents  may  not  go  before 
the  coal  road  presidents  as  suppli- 
cants. If  they  choose  they  can  go  into 
the  meeting  with  a club.  It  is  a well- 
known  fact  that  the  independents  are 
not  fixedly  adverse  to  recognizing  the 
United  Mine  Workers.  In  fact  some 
of  them  have  declared  it  would  be 
economy  for  them  to  grant  substan- 
tially all  the  miners  ask  including  rec- 
ognition of  the  union  if  in  return  they 
could  receive  assurance  of  immunity 
from  strike  troubles. 

This  being  true,  it  is  not  impossible 
that  the  independents  may  go  so  far 
as  to  say  to  the  coal  presidents  that 
if  they  (the  independents),  are  not 
properly  taken  care  of  they  will  offer 
fifteen  per  cent,  advance  in  wages, 
eight  hours  and  recognition  of  the 
union  as  a basis  of  settlement. 

It  was  only  in  dribs  and  by  hints  the 
information  as  to  the  true  feelings  of 
tiie  independents  was  gleaned.  The 
official  statement  given  out  regarding 
Saturday  night’s  meeting  contained  no 
inkling  of  any  belligerent  tendenci  s 
on  the  part  of  the  independents.  “Our 
committee  is  simply  going  to  New 
York  to  find  out  in  what  way  we  are 
to  co-operate  in  bringing  about  the 
proposed  amicable  adjustment”  is  the 
story  coming  from  the  meeting  and 
echoed  by  individuals  who  attended. 

Miners  to  Take  a Hand. 

The  miners  are  using  their  best  en- 
deavors to  conciliate  the  independents, 
whose  "bomb  shell”  at  Saturday  morn- 
ing’s session  of  the  commission  was 
looked  upon  by  the  miners  as  a possi- 


ble serious  obstacle  to  settlement  “out 
of  court.”  Clarence  S.  Darrow,  chief 
counsel  for  the  miners,  and  Ira  H. 
Burns,  of  counsel  for  the  independent 
operators,  are  to  have  a conference 
this  afternoon  at  Hotel  Jermyn.  This 
conference  was  arranged  at  Mr.  Dar- 
row’s  request,  before  he  left  for  New 
York  Saturday  night.  In  view  of  the 
action  of  the  Independent  Operators’ 
association,  Saturday  night,  it  is  like- 
ly very  little  will  come  of  the  Darrow- 
Purns  conference. 

One  main  objection  of  the  independ- 
ents to  the  settlement  of  the  contro- 
versy “out  of  court”  is  their  fear  that 
the  commission  will  dissolve  without 
dealing  with  the  “non-unionist”  prob- 
lem. The  independents  have  a greater 
proportion  of  non-union  employes  than 
the  big  companies,  and  feel  greatly 
obligated  to  these  men  for  standing  by 
them  during  the1  strike.  They  want 
that  the  commission  should  hear  in  de- 
tail what  they  have  to  present  on  this 
matter  and  to  come  out  in  strong  lan- 
guage in  support  of  the  proposition  that 
it  is  the  inalienable  constitutional  right 
of  a man  to  work  without  let  or 
hindrance  from  a union. 

This,  however,  is  not  likely  to  cause 
any  trouble,  as  the  commissioners  have 
not  surrendered  any  of  their  jurisdic- 
tion and  do  not  propose  to  shirk  any 
responsibilities.  The  “non-union”  ques- 
tion will  be  dealt  with  fully.  If  deemed 
necessary  the  commission  will  take  tes- 
timony on  it,  even  though  every  other 
matter  is  brushed  away  by  amicable 
settlement.  One  of  the  commissioners 
said:  “We  are  working  under  two 

charters.  Even  though  every  strike 
issue  was  settled,  we  will  be  called  upon 
to  deal  with  the  matter  of  preventing 
future  controversies.” 

Regarding  the  present  negotiations, 
he  said:  “Everything  in  dispute  during 
the  strike,  as  I understand  it,  is  ten- 
tatively adjusted.  We  have  r.o  official 
information  to  this  effect,  but  that  is 
what  I gather  from  the  incidents  of  the 
past  two  days.  The  commission,  of 
course,  is  not  bound  to  ratify  the  agree- 
ments that  will  be  arrived  at  by  the 
parties,  and  will  not  ratify  them  unless 
they  meet  with  our  approval.  The  com- 
mission will  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  the  public  is  a party  to  this 
cause.” 

How  It  Came  About. 

It  now  develops  that  it  was  the  com- 
mission which  first  suggested  the  pdssl- 
bility  of  an  amicable  settlement.  When 
ft  was  seen  how  smoothly  the  hearings 
were  proceeding  and  how  really  friend- 
ly and  courteous  the  opposing  parties 
were  one  to  another,  it  occurred  to  the 
commissioners  that  it  was  just  possible 
that  some,  or  probably  all,  of  the  main 
contentions  could  be  eliminated  by  the 
parties  coming  together  “outside  of 
court.” 

The  commissioners,  privately,  sent  for 
Attorneys  Darrow  and  MacVeagli,  who 
up  to  that  time  seemed  to  be  the  lead- 
ing counsel,  respectively,  for  the  two 


principal  parties  and  put  to  them  the 
proposition  of  amicable  adjustment.  Mr. 
MacVeagh  went  to  New  York,  saw  the 
heads  of  the  coal  companies  and  came 
back  with  the  offer  told  about  in  Satur- 
day’s Tribune.  Adjournment  was  then 
had  to  give  opportunity  for  working  out 
the  details.  The  counsel  for  the  differ- 
ent companies  went  home  to  see  their 
respective  presidents,  and  today  will 
likely  see  a conference  of  all  the  big 
companies’  presidents  and  attorneys  in 
New  York. 

The  mine  workers  continue  to  give 
out  the  impression  that  the  overtures 
for  a settlement  came  from  the  oper- 
ators, but  the  operators  here  deny  it. 
They  declare  that  the  miners  discov- 
ered they  had  no  case.  One  of  them 
said ; 

“If  it  was  a case  in  court  we  should 
simply  ask  for  a non-suit.  The  miners 
cannot  submit  a table  of  wages  show- 
ing the  amounts  received  by  the  men, 
and  we  can,  and  the  figures  will  show 
that  the  men  are  getting  more  than 
Mr.  Mitchell  demands  for  them — $600  a 
year  as  a living  wage. 

“Few  of  the  companies  have  an  aver- 
age of  less  than  $700.” 

“If  that  is  the  case,  why  are  the  oper- 
ators willing  to  give  an  increase?”  he 
was  asked. 

“Because  of  the  general  prosperity  of 
the  country.  The  railroads  have  given 
t,heir  men  ten  per  cent.,  and  with  such 
a number  of  employes  as  the  operators 
have  we  cannot  well  refuse  to  give 
them  an  increase  too. 

Fighting  for  Principle. 

“The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  we 
were  never  fighting  so  much  against  an 
increase  as  we  were  fighting  for  the 
principle  involved.  We  wanted  to  man- 
age our  own  properties,  and  we  have 
finally  succeeded,  we  think,  in  doing  so. 
Recognition  of  the  union  was  purely 
and  simply  what  the  officers  of  the  mine 
workers  were  fighting  for  throughout.” 

Regarding  the  question  of  making 
contracts  with  the  workers  and  the 
manner  in  which  it  would  be  done,  he 
said:  “We  will  probably  ascertain  what 
our  men  believe  the  condition  of  work 
should  be,  reach  an  agreement  with 
them  regarding  it  and  post  a notice  at 
the  mines  as  to  what  it  will  be.  There 
will  be  no  signing  of  contracts  with 
each  individual  worker  or  with  the  col- 
liery employes  as  a body.” 

Another  reason  why  they  are  anxious 
to  end  the  inquiry,  it  is  said,  was  ad- 
vanced by  a local  independent  oper- 
ator, who  has  made  a close  study  of  the 
situation. 

“Under  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania,”  he 
said,  “railroad  corporations  are  not  per- 
mitted to  engage  in  the  business  of 
mining,  and,  it  has  been  decided,  may 
not  hold  the  majority  of  the  stock  of 
any  mining  company.  Several  of  the 
companies  do  own  such  majority  con- 
trol, and  are  not  anxious  to  disclose 
the  fact  under  oath  on  the  witness 
stand.  Neither  are  they  eager  to  have 
their  officers  or  men,  who  were  formerly 


officers,  but  are  not  now  in  their  em- 
ploy, to  testify  as  to  the  cost  and  profit 
of  mining  coal,  the  transportation 
charges  or  the  rebates  granted  to  the 
shippers  from  their  own  mines. 

"When  the  non-union  miners  asked 
for  the  right  to  participate  in  the  in- 
vestigation the  railroad  lawyers  sought 
to  have  the  list  of  their  names  kept 
secret.  This  request  was  refused  by  the 
commission,  though  Judge  Gray  prom- 
ised that  no  improper  use  would  be 
made  of  the  list.  This  ruling  was  a 
precedent,  and  was  understood  to  be 
such.  It  meant  that  no  testimony  would 
be  taken  in  secret,  and  that  the  rail- 
roads could  not  expect  to  present  fig- 
ures relating  to  their  business  in  cam- 
era. From  that  moment  they  wanted 
the  inquiry  stopped.” 

Among  the  prominent  witnesses  who, 
it  is  alleged,  the  railroad  companies 
are  afraid  of  is  Mr.  Walter,  president 
of  the  Lehigh  Valley,  whose  resignation 
was  accepted  by  the  board  of  directors 
this  week. 

Saturday’s  Proceedings. 

As  forecast  in  Saturday’s  Tribune,  the 
mine  strike  commission  had  a very 
brief  session  Saturday  morning  and 
then  adjourned  till  December  3,  to  give 
the  parties  opportunity  to  settle  their 
differences  amicably.  The  independent 
operators  protested  against  a settle- 
ment “out  of  court,”  asserting  there 
had  been  an  understanding  between  the 
big  companies  and  the  miners  to  which 
they  had  not  been  parties  and  that  they 
did  not  propose  to  be  compelled  to  sub- 
scribe to  anything  other  parties  might 
agree  to.  Judge  Gray  assured  the  in- 
dependent operators  there  had  been  no 
agreement  reached  as  far  as  the  com- 
missioners knew  and  that  no  agree- 
ments would  be  ratified  by  the  commis- 
sion until  all  the  parties  concerned  were 
parties  to  the  agreement. 

The  commission  adjourned  and  ap- 
pointed Commissioners  Clark,  Parker 
and  Watkins  to  remain  here  as  a sub- 
committee to  act  with  the  parties  as 
conciliators.  The  sub-committee  called 
together  the  attorneys  who  were  still 
in  the  city  Saturday  afternoon,  and 
after  a conference  with  them  issued 
the  following  statement: 

Scranton,  Pa.,  Nov.  22,  1902. 

It  appears  that  there  is  some  misunder- 
standing or  some  lack  of  understanding 
in  connection  with  the  recess  taken  by 
the  commission  and  the  suggestion  in 
that  connection  that  possibly  the  contest- 
ants might  be  able  to  agree  upon  some  of 
the  important  points  involved. 

The  recess  was  desired  by  counsel  for 
both  sides  because  authoritative  state- 
ments of  hours  and  wages  which  are  be- 
ing prepared  are  not  as  yet  ready. 

The  suggestion  was  made  that  perhaps 
some  agreement  might  be  reached  be- 
tween the  principals  which  would  simplify 
the  problem  and  assist  in  reaching  proper 
conclusions.  The  chairman,  speaking  for 
the  commission,  stated  that  the  commis- 
sion would  gladly  co-operate,  as  far  as 
could  consistently  be  done,  in  furthering 
an  effort  to  reach  an  understanding 
through  conciliatory  means  and  methods. 

The  idea  has  gone  out  in  some  quarters 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

that  the  matter  is  to  be  settled  without 
further  effort  or  responsibility  on  the 
part  of  the  commission.  The  idea  is  en- 
tirely wrong.  The  commission  will,  as  an- 
nounced, cheerfully  encourage  concilia- 
tory spirit  and  action  between  the  parties 
to  the  controversy,  but  the  commission 
has  not  surrendered,  and  will  not  sur- 
render, jurisdiction  of  any  of  the  matters 
•which  have  heen  referred  to  it,  nor  re- 
sponsibility for  the  conclusion  reached. 
No  adjustment  can  be  made  which  does 
not,  by  its  terms  commend  itself  strongly 
enough  to  secure  the  approval  of  the 
commission  and  its  incorporation  in  the 
award. 

With  a view  and  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
moving any  misunderstanding  which 
might  exist,  the  sub-committee  of  the 
commission  invited  such  of  the  counsel 
representing  the  several  interests  involved 
as  could  be  reached  to  meet  this  after- 
noon. 

The  committee  and  the  counsel  were  in 
session  for  two  hours.  Besides  the  com- 
missioners, Attorneys  Clarence  S.  Dar- 
row,  James  L.  Lenahan  and  Henry  Lloyd 
were  present  in  the  interests  of  the 
miners;  Attorney  David  Willeox,  for  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company;  Everett 
Warren,  for  the  Erie,  Hillside  and  Lack- 
awanna Coal  companies;  John  B.  Kerr, 
for  Ontario  and  Western;  I.  H.  Burns,  for 
the  independent  operators,  and  John  T. 
Lenahan  and  Joseph  O'Brien  for  the  non- 
union miners. 

Independents’  Protest. 

The  proceedings  of  Saturday  morn- 
ing’s half  hour  session  were  wholly 
devoted  to  the  question  of  recess  and 
the  independent  operators’  protest. 
Apprehended  is  a verbatim  report  of 
the  discussion: 

By  Mr.  Darrow:  Gentlemen  of  the 

commission — Since  the  adjournment  we 
have  considered  the  suggestion  that  the 
president  made  yesterday  and  we  wish  to 
say  that  we  are  doing  the  best  we  can. 
We  have  seen,  under  the  circumstances, 
the  impossibility  of  getting  the  exact  fig- 
ures here  at  once,  and  the  wisest  thing 
for  all  of  us  to  do  is  to  adjourn  the  ses- 
sion .here,  without  adjourning  the  com- 
mission, because  we  will  certainly  need 
your  help  if  we  bring  about  what  is  de- 
sired—but  adjourn  the  session,  say  to  the 
3d  of  December.  We  have  the  greatest 
confidence  that  much  will  come  out  of  it. 

By  Judge  Grey:  I have  heard  and  I 

am  sure  the  commission  have  heard,  with 
satisfaction  what  you  say  with  regard  to 
the  suggestion  you  made  yesterday  at 
the  close  of  the  morning  session.  Cf 
course,  it  is  our  duty  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine the  matters  in  controversy.  The 
suggestion  made  yesterday  was  made  in- 
dependent of  the  idea  of  making  an 
agreement  with  regard  to  other  matters 
than  the  schedules  of  wages,  and  was 
with  reference  to  our  hearing,  and  was 
not  with  reference  to  anything  else  that 
we  consider  the  matter  of  an  adjourn- 
ment. 

It  seems  to  us  that  we  have  coma  to  a 
crisis  as  to  the  introduction  of  testimony 
which  we  desire  to  hear.  We  are  willirg 
that  both  sides  should  confer  together 
and  produce  before  us,  as  far  as  they 
can,  facts  that  they  agree  to  and  also 
agree  upon  a statement.  That  is  the 
situation  now,  and  that  is  the  reason 
that  the  commission  think  it  would  be 
wise  to  adopt  the  suggestion  to  adjourn 
from  now  until  a time  to  be  determined 
upon,  We  have  no  suggestion  at  all,  ex- 


53 


cept  the  suggestion  by  you,  to  adjourn 
to  the  3d  of  December.  That  will  take  us 
over  the  Thanksgiving  holidays  at  any 
rate.  So  we  think  the  proposition  of  ad- 
journment to  the  3d  of  December  wou’d 
be  acceptable  to  us  unless  there  is  some 
objection  to  it.  It  will  be  so  ordered 
when  we  adjourn. 

We  will  adjourn  until  that  time  for  the 
purpose  of  allowing  the  parties  to  pre- 
pare the  figures  with  regard  to  wages. 

At  this  juncture  Attorney  H.  C.  Rey- 
nolds, of  counsel  for  the  independent 
operators,  presented  the  following: 

Far  Greater  Consequence. 

Tto  the  Honorable,  the  Anthracite  Com- 
mission. 

If  the  commission  plea.se,  we  are  not  a 
party  to  nor  were  we  consulted  in  the 
submission  as  agreed  upon  between  the 
presidents  of  the  large  companies  and  the 
representatives  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America. 

After  the  commission  had  been  regu- 
larly appointed  by  the  president  we  were 
invited  by  the  recorder  of  this  commission 
to  become  a party  to  its  deliberations, 
with  the  understanding  that  the  agree- 
ments were  to  be  binding  upon  its  find- 
ings. 

The  independent  operators  signified 
their  willingness  to  become  a party  to 
and  to  submit  to  the  commission  our  con- 
tentions. As  far  as  the  individual  opera.  - 
tors  are  concerned  nothing  has  de  reloped 
in  this  preliminary  hearing  that  tends  io 
change  our  minds  as  to  the  position  w • 
took  on  the  first  of  last  May. 

Indeed,  from  the  independent  onerator  - 
point  of  view,  there  is  something  move 
vital  that  concerns  not  only  the  onera- 
tors,  but  every  American  citizen  living 
in  the  anthracite  coal  fields  of  a far  great- 
er consequence  than  the  mere  advancing 
of  wages  or  the  recognition  of  any  labor 
organization. 

We  believe  the  rights  of  American  citi- 
zens have  been  assailed,  terrorism,  int  rn- 
idation  and,  indeed,  anarchy  has  prevailed 
throughout  the  anthracite  region,  and  it 
is  the  purpose  of  the  operators  to  at  least 
have  an  expression  of  the  American  peo- 
ple through  this  honorable  commission, 
appointed  by  its  president,  thereby  plac- 
ing their  seal  of  disapproval  upon  future 
acts,  so  that  anyone  claiming  to  be  a 
citizen  and  under  the  protection  of  the 
American  government  would  hesitate  be- 
fore he  would  assail  the  rights  of  another 
individual  American. 

As  to  the  increase  of  wages,  the  inde- 
pendent operators  believe,  and.  as  stater! 
in  their  answer  to  the  demands  of  the 
representatives  of  their  employes,  that 
the  wages  paid  to  the  mine  workers  at 
their  collieries  are  equal  to  and,  in  many 
instances,  exceed  the  price  paid  for 
skilled  labor  in  the  vicinity  wherein  their 
colileries  are  located,  and,  under  the  com- 
petitive conditions  of  operations,  the  in- 
dependent operator  is  not  in  a position  to 
concede  an  advance  of  wages;  so,  tnere- 
fore,  they  desire,  after  a reasonable  ad- 
journment of  your  commission,  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  the  necessary  statis- 
tics, an  opportunity  of  presenting  facts 
and  figures  to  the  commission,  which  fig- 
ures will  show  the  general  average  ot 
earnings  of  the  miner  working  for  the  in- 
dependent operators  is  over  $700  a year 
and.  in  many  instances,  from  $1,000  to 
$1,200  per  year;  so,  that  when  we  receive 
the  decision  of  your  honorable  body  It 
will  mean  something  more  than  tempor- 
ary peace. 

The  Individual  Operators. 


54 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Mr.  Burns’  Argument. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  reading  At- 
torney I.  H.' Burns,  for  the  independent 
operators,  rose,  and  the  following  dia- 
logue was  heard: 

By  Mr.  Burns:  If  the  commission 

please,  1 do  not  exactly  know  who  Mr. 
Darrow  refers  to  when  he  says  “the 
parties  have  been  engaged  in  an  attempt 
at  settlement.”  Certainly  the  individual 
operators  have  come  here  in  good  faith 
and  have  not  been  consulted. 

By  Judge  Grey:  There  has  not  been  a 
great  amount  of  time  to  be  consulted  be- 
tween last  night  and  10  o’clock  this  morn- 
ing. 

By  Mr.  Burns — A good  deal  can  be  done 
in  that  time.  We  do  not  want  it  under- 
stood that  by  sitting  here  and  keeping 
still  that  we  agree  to  everything  done 
without  being  consulted. 

By  Judge  Grey:  We  do  not  assume 

that  the  individual  operators  have  agreed 
to  anything. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  I suppose  they  are  par- 
ties to  this  hearing  and  have  some  rights 
to  be  consulted. 

By  Judge  Grey:  We  have  consulted 

with  no  one.  There  has  been  no  consul- 
tation except  what  you  have  heard  in 
open  commission. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  We  have  no  objection 

whatever  to  an  adjournment  and  an  en- 
deavor to  conciliate,  but  we  would  not 
want  it  understood  that  Mr.  Darrow  and 
somebody  else  can  get  together  and  set- 
tle the  whole  thing  without  letting  us 
know  anything  about  it. 

By  Judge  Grey:  You  will  have  ample 

opportunity,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  It  seems  to  us  there 

are  other  people  who  ought  to  be  con- 
sulted outside  of  the  people  who  are 
here  represented — the  public,  who  have 
to  pay  all  the  expenses  in  the  end.  If 
there  is  any  increase  in  wages  or  any- 
thing of  that  kind,  it  is  to  rest  upon  the 
bowed  shoulder  of  the  consumer.  While 
the  consumer  is  not  actually  represented 
here,  yet  he  no  doubt  has  the  utmost 
confidence,  as  we  all  have,  in  the  integ- 
rity of  this  commission,  and  the  impar- 
tial judgment  when  it  shall  be  exercised, 
of  the  commission.  For  our  own  part  we 
would  like  to  have  the  thing  fought  out, 
instead  of  an  arrangement  between  the 
parties  immediately  interested.  I am  in- 
formed there  was  none  of  the  individual 
operators  notified. 

By  Judge  Grey:  Bet  me  say  again  for 

fear  you  misunderstood.  The  commission 
have  notified  no  parties  and  have  spoken 
only  as  you  have  heard  them  speak  in 
this  court  room.  We  are  not  here  to  no- 
tify parties.  We  are  only  here  and  our 
judgment  is  that  we  can  perform  our 
office  no  better  than  to  forward,  if  we 
can,  an  effort  in  the  direction  ind'cated. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  Do  not  misunderstand 

me  to  say  that  I am  saying  anything  for 
a moment  against  the  commission.  I 
am  upholding  the  commission.  I say  we 
desire  to  have  the  judgment  of  the  com- 
mission rather  than  the  private  agree- 
ment of  some  of  the  parties  who  may 
be  interested  here.  It  is  the  judgment 
of  the  commission  we  want,  unbiased  by 
anybody. 

"Will  Withhold  Judgment. 

By  Judge  Grey:  We  do  not  propose  to 

form  a judgment  upon  a pending  agree- 
ment. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  I think  the  commission 

misunderstood  me.  I am  saying  we  want 
the  judgment  of  the  commission,  and  we 
want  x full  hearing  and  want  a judg- 


ment that  the  people  of  the  whole  coun- 
try will  have  confidence  in,  and  which 
will  tend  to  make  things  permanent  here, 
rather  than  a temporary  arrangement  ss 
every  other  arrangement  heretofore  has 
been.  We  think  that  the  judgment  of 
the  commission  will  be  something  that 
will  last  for  years,  while  a temporary  ar- 
rangement between  the  operators  and  the 
miners  for  their  own  individual  benefit 
will  be  something  that  they  may  quarrel 
over  next  year. 

By  Judge  Grey:  You  are  characteriz- 

ing matters  that  have  not  come  into  ex- 
istence and  we  do  not  propose  anything 
that  is  in  the  future.  We  have  only  in- 
dicated our  desire  and  wish  a judgment 
as  to  the  propriety  of  an  effort  in  that 
direction  and  would  be  very  glad  if  they 
succeed. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  1 understood  from  what 

the  commission  indicated  yesterday  that 
they  would  be  glad  to  have  the  parties 
agree  upon  everything  that  they  could 
agree  on  and  leave  as  little  as  possib'e 
for  the  commission  and  perhaps  not  any- 
thing at  all. 

By  Judge  Grey:  We  said  nothing  about 
leaving  as  little  a=  possible.  There  is 
no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mission to  forward  this  or  any  other 
proposition  in  order  to  relieve  them- 
selves. But  looking  at  it  as  a matter  cf 
high  and  important  duty  imposed  upon 
us  by  the  public,  the  commission  author- 
ized me  to  say  that  they  would  be  grati- 
fied that  an  effort  of  the  kind  indicated 
yesterday  was  to  be  made,  holding  them- 
selves reads'  to  assist  by  any  method  of 
conciliation  in  their  power. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  That  is  very  true  of 

all  of  the  parties. 

By  Judge  Grey:  We  are  here  because 

you  cannot  agree  and  if  you  can  agree 
why  shouldn’t  you? 

By  Mr.  Burns:  That  is  not  what  we 

object  to.  We  object  to  three  or  four 
agreeing  for  30  or  40. 

By  Judge  Grey:  I do  not  see  how  they 
can. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  They  cannot,  but  they 

are  attempting  to,  and  carrying  the  idea 
to  the  public  that  they  are  going  to  bind 
everybody. 

By  Judge  Grey:  As  I have  already  said, 
you  are  characterizing  matters  and  things 
that  have  not  developed  in  a way  to  per- 
mit of  such  characterization. 

By  Mr.  Burns:  We  would  like  to  read  a 
short  statement  and  ask  to  have  it  go  on 
record.  At  this  point  the  statement  was 
read  by  Mr.  H.  C.  Reynolds,  which  ap- 
pears above. 

By  Judge  Grey:  Well,  I do  not  want 

to  prolong  this  discussion.  The  commit- 
sion  has  merely  said  what  1 repeat  and 
emphasize  now  that  they  will  cordially 
forward  any  effort  for  a conciliation  and 
assist  the  parties  and  there  we  stop. 

Erie  Seconds  It. 

By  Mr.  Brownell:  I desire  to  second 

Mr.  Darrow’s  request  for  an  adjournment 
until  Dec.  3.  The  managers  of  the  Hill- 
side Coal  and  Iron  company  and  the 
Pennsylvania  Coal  company  are  ready 
and  willing  to  meet  the  views  of  the  com- 
mission as  expressed  by  your  honor. 

By  Mr.  Willcox:  I want  to  correct  Mr. 
Burns’  statement  of  there  being  a meet- 
ing held  at  which  they  were  not  present, 
because  there  was  no  meeting. 

By  Judge  Grey  (addressing  Mr.  Lena- 
han,  who  represents  the  non-union  men): 
You  made  the  suggestion  yesterday  that 
you  desired  to  ask  certain  questions  of 
Dr.  Roberts. 


By  Mr.  Lenahan:  In  view  of  the  devel- 
opments in  this  matter  my  associate  and 
myself  after  consultation  last  night,  con- 
clude that  if  the  hearing  is  to  go  on  on 
the  third  of  December  then,  with  the  per- 
mission of  the  commission,  we  shall  pro- 
ceed with  the  cross-examination  of  Dr. 
Roberts,  and  I can  only  say  on  behalf  cf 
my  cilents  that  the  steps  now  being  taken 
for  this  conciliation  will  meet  with  the 
highest  and  greatest  favor  of  them,  and 
they  hope  they  will  succeed. 

By  Judge  Grey  (addressing  Mr.  Dar- 
row): Gentlemen:  Have  you  any  further 
testimony  to  offer  at  this  time? 

By  Mr.  Darrow:  No.  your  honor.  We 

feel  that  we  have  not  any  specific  tes- 
timony, such  as  this  commission  ought  to 
hear.  To  offer  general  testimony  would 
only  consume  time,  and  we  feel  that  it 
would  be  wise  not  to  offer  any  testimony 
this  morning.  My  statement  may  not 
have  been  made  as  fully  or  as  forcibly 
as  it  should  have  been  on  our  side.  AA'e 
have  no  desire,  and  would  not  consider  it 
wise,  to  take  the  matter  out  of  the  hands 
of  this  commission.  AA'e  have  no  power 
to  do  it,  and  have  no  desire  to  do  it,  and 
could  not  accomplish  anything  without 
the  assistance  of  the  commission.  AVe 
have  had  no  conference,  and  we  certainly 
do  not  wish  to  ignore  anybody  who  is  in- 
terested here,  and  nothing  would  be  ac- 
complished without  consulting  everyone 
who  is  here.  As  far  as  the  mine  workers 
are  concerned,  they  want  a full  report 
from  the  commission. 

By  Judge  Grey:  Before  adjournment  I 

repeat  that  the  commission  have  taken  no 
action  other  than  has  been  taken  in  this 
court  room.  They  would  be  glad  to  for- 
ward any  effort  of  conciliation  between 
the  parties  to  this  controversy.  That  they 
repeat.  It  does  not  at  all  follow  from 
saying  that  they  are  interfering  with  any 
of  the  rights  of  any  of  the  parties,  orig- 
inal or  intervening  parties,  appearing  be- 
fore this  commission  and  presenting  such 
phases  of  the  ease  as  they  in  their  judg- 
ment think  important.  And,  speaking  as 
we  think  we  have  right  to  speak— most 
certainly  with  as  much  right  and  author- 
ity as  either  side  of  this  controversy  to 
speak  for  the  great  public  who  are  watch- 
ing with  much  interest,  and  we  Delieve 
that  they  will  approve  of  what  we  have 
said— we  have  as  yet  done  nothing  about 
the  matter  that  we  have  spoken  about 
this  morning.  Now.  in  adopting  the  sug- 
gestion made  by  counsel  1 understand 
that  there  is  no  objection  on  either  side 
of  the  proposition  made  for  an  adjourn- 
ment for  the  purpose  stated,  that  purpose 
being  that  the  parties  on  both  sides  may 
arrange  in  any  convenient  form  the  facts 
and  figures  for  the  commission.  If  there 
is  no  objection  the  commission  will  an- 
nounce its  decision  with  regard  to  it. 

Adjournment  Decreed. 

Taking  the  absence  of  objection  to  be 
consent  to  that  proposition,  the  commis- 
sion will  act  upon  it.  and  adjourn  for  the 
purposes  indicated  until  the  third  day  of 
December,  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in 
this  court  room.  And,  in  order  that  we 
may  not  by  our  absence  entirely  inter- 
fere with  the  work  that  is  proposed  to  be 
done,  the  commission,  either  as  a whole 
or  by  a committee,  will  remain  in  Scran- 
ton during  the  interval,  in  order  that  they 
may  voice  the  wishes  of  the  commission 
with  regard  to  any  matter  that  might 
arise  in  the  interval. 

AA'ishing  you.  gentlemen,  all  a happy 
Thanksgiving  time,  although  a laborious 
one,  the  commission  is  now  adjourned  un- 


til  Wednesday,  the  third  day  of  Decem- 
ber. 

The  following  was  given  out  Satur- 
day in  Philadelphia  by  Mr.  MacVeagh: 
“The  presidents  of  the  coal  compan- 
ies, who  signed  the  letter  suggesting 
the  appointment  of  the  Anthracite 
Strike  commission,  have  approved  the 


mine  strike  commission 

general  outline  of  the  plan  of  settle- 
ment, leaving  details  of  all  kinds  for 
future  adjustment.  A telegram  to  that 
effect,  drafted  by  President  Baer  and 
signed  by  Mr.  MacVeagh,  was  sent  to 
Judge  Gray  Friday  afternoon.’’ 

All  the  members  of  the  commission, 
with  the  exception  of  the  sub-commit- 


55 

tee,  Messrs.  Clark,  Parker  and  Wat- 
kins, have  left  the  city.  The  out-of- 
town  attorneys  have  also  gone  to  their 
respective  homes,  with  the  exception 
of  Clarence  S.  Darrow,  who  took  a run 
down  to  New  York  on  private  business. 
He  will  return  today.  President  Mitch- 
ell is  still  here. 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Nov.  2-4. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  26.] 


The  center  of  activity  in  the  anthra- 
cite mine  strike  controversy  has  been 
shifted  from  Scranton  to  New  York 
and  Washington. 

In  New  York,  today,  a conference  will 
be  held  between  representatives  of  the 
independent  operators  and  the  presi- 
dents of  the  coal  carrying  companies. 
In  Washington,  there  will  be  a confer- 
ence between  representatives  of  the 
miners  and  attorneys  for  the  big  com- 
panies, with  a view  of  settling,  as  far 
as  possible,  the  matters  in  dispute  in 
the  strike. 

Hon.  W.  L.  Connell  and  C.  D.  Simp- 
son, of  the  independent  operators’  com- 
mittee, left  yesterday  morning  on  the 
Lackawanna,  at  10.15,  to  arrange  the 
details  of  the  conference  told  of  ex- 
clusively and  in  detail  in  yesterday’s 
Tribune.  The  other  members  of  the 
committee  left  for  New  York  on  the 
3.35  p.  m.  Lackawanna  train. 

When  the  presidents  of  the  carrier- 
operator  companies  and  the  committee 
of  nine  of  the  independent  operators 
come  together,  today,  some  interesting 
developments  can  be  looked  for. 

Position  of  Independents. 

The  independents  will  insist  that  they 
can  not  go  along  in  the  proposition  to 
amicably  adjust  the  controversy  by  al- 
lowing increased  wages  unless  the  big 
companies  give  assurance  that  there 
will  be  a reduction  in  freight  rates  or 
a maintenance  of  the  advanced  price  in 
coal.  If  the  big  companies  do  not  give 
the  independents  “due  consideration,’’ 
their  committee  will,  on  its  return  to 
Scranton,  recommend  that  the  inde- 


pendents insist  on  the  commission  pro- 
ceeding, as  if  there  had  been  no  re- 
cess, and  determine  not  only  the  ethics 
but  the  mathematics  of  the  contro- 
versy. 

If  all  fruit  fails,  the  independents 
wi]l  attempt  to  deal  directly  with  the 
United  Mine  Workers. 

Just  what  the  Washington  conference 
is  to  be  like,  the  interested  parties  in 
this  city,  yesterday,  could  give  no  def- 
inite information. 

In  the  early  afternoon,  Wayne  Mac- 
Veagh called  up  on  the  long  distance 
telephone  and  requested  that  represen- 
tatives of  the  miners  come  to  Wash- 
ington, today,  to  confer  with  him  and 
other  representatives  of  the  coal  com- 
panies regarding  the  amicable  adjust- 
ment proposition.  Mr.  MacVeagh  was 
disposed  to  give  details,  but  an  inter- 
vening storm,  somewhere  along  the  line, 
made  telephonic  communication  diffi- 
cult, and  the  most  the  miners’  represen- 
tative could  definitely  glean  was  that 
they  were  wanted  in  Washington  at 
once. 

Went  to  Washington. 

Accordingly,  at  4.35  p.  m.,  yesterday, 
President  Mitchell,  Attorney  Darrow, 
Mr.  Lloyd,  Kellogg  Durham  and  Mr. 
Mitchell’s  private  secretary,  Miss  Mor- 
ris, left  for  Washington  over  the  Dei- 
aware  and  Hudson  and  Pennsylvania 
roads.  Messrs.  Darrow  and  Lloyd  will 
stop  at  the  New  Willard  and  the  rest  of 
the  party  at  the  Reuter  hotel. 

Before  leaving,  Mr.  Mitchell  had  an 
earnest  conversation  with  District  Pres- 
idents Nieholls,  Fahy  and  Duffy,  on  the 


■way  from  the  headquarters  at  the  St. 
Charles’  to  the  station  and  on  the  sta- 
tion platform.  They  will  remain  here 
until  he  returns.  It  was  strongly  in- 
timated by  Mr.  Mitchell  that  he  expect- 
ed to  go  to  New  York  between  now 
and  December  3,  the  date  of  the  reas- 
sembling of  the  commission — and  that 
he  -would  not  be  back  in  Scranton  before 
Friday  night. 

The  conference,  yesterday  morning, 
between  I.  H.  Burns,  of  counsel  for 
the  independent  operators,  and  Clarence 
S.  Darrow,  leading  counsel  for  the  min- 
ers, was  not  fraught  with  important  de- 
velopments. In  view  of  the  fact  that 
a meeting  of  the  independents  and  the 
big  companies  is  to  take  place  tomor- 
row, they  agreed  that  anything  they 
might  do  would  be  of  little  or  no  avail, 
so  they  contented  themselves  with  a 
twenty  minutes’  discussion,  of  the  mat- 
ter. 

Commissioners  Clark,  Parker  and 
Watkins  are  still  in  the  city,  but  are 
doing  nothing  relating  to  the  strike. 
Mr.  Clark  will  stay  here  and  busy  him- 
self with  private  matters.  Messrs. 
Parker  and  Watkins  will  go  to  New 
York  today  or  tomorrow  to  participate 
in  some  Thanksgiving  festivities.  Mr. 
Clark  was  invited  to  be  Mr.  Parker’s 
guest  in  New  York  over  Thanksgiving, 
but  had  to  decline  by  reason  of  stress 
of  business. 

There  is  some  talk  among  local  labor 
leaders  of  inaugurating  a movement 
here  to  have  the  next  congress  enact 
legislation  to  make  a permanent  in- 
stitution of  the  present  commission. 
As  yet  the  project  has  not  taken  on  a 
definite  shape. 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Nov,  25. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  26.] 


Whether  it  was  the  protest  of  the  in- 
dependent operators  or  a realization  on 
the  Dart  of  the  coal  road  presidents 
that  a settlement  “out  of  court”  of  the 
strike  controversy  was  not  to  the  liking 
of  the  thinking  public,  the  fact  now 
develops  that  the  proposed  amicable  ad- 
justment is  all  off. 

Both  the  mathematics  and  the  ethics 
of  the  strike  dispute  are  to  be  threshed 
out  before  the  commission. 

It  was  thought  all  along,  until  yes- 
terday, that  all  the  big  companies  were 
acquiescing,  at  least,  in  Wayne  Mac- 
Veagh’s  activities  towards  amicable  ad- 


justment. It  now  seems  as  if  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh was  acting  on  his  own  account 
in  every  step  he  took  beyond  making 
arrangements  for  conferences,  at  which 
the  parties  might  agree  as  to  facts  con- 
cerning wage  and  labor  statistics. 

Maybe  this  is  doing  Mr.  MacVeagh 
an  injustice,  but  if  it  is  the  blame  lie9 
with  the  coal  presidents.  Either  he  has 
been  borne  beyond  his  authority  by  his 
enthusiasm,  or  the  coal  presidents  have 
repudiated  him  after  giving  the  author- 
ity he  has  been  acting  under,  presum- 
ably. 


Negotiations  Are  Off. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  the  negotiations, 
authorized  or  unauthorized  for  amic- 
able adjustment,  are  all  off. 

The  committee  of  independent  oper- 
ators, which  went  to  New  York  to  have 
a conference  with  the  coal  presidents 
yesterday,  returned  last  night,  wreathed 
in  smiles.  The  afternoon  dispatches  told 
in  detail  of  the  big  corrp'nus  havirg 
coincided  in  their  views.  Thty  one  and 
all  confirmed  these  dispatches. 

One  of  the  committee  said  last  night: 
“We  gained  our  point.  Everything  we 
sought  was  acceded  to.  It  required 


56 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


little  or  no  argument  on  our  part  to 
convince  the  coal  presidents  that  the 
hearings  before  the  commission  should 
be  proceeded  with.  They’  had  about 
come  to  this  conclusion  themselves. 

“It  is  a great  victory  for  us,”  he  con- 
tinued. “Under  the  amicable  adjust- 
ment than  we  were  to  have  been  en- 
gineered out  of  court,  without  being 
given  an  opportunity  of  defending  our 
declaration  of  May  last,  that  we  were 
paying  all  the  wages  our  business  war- 
ranted and  that  we  were  denied  the 
right  to  hire  and  discharge  men  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers.  We  want  to  show  this,  and 
we  can  show  it.” 

Developments  Anticipated. 

The  commissioners,  it  would  seem, 
half  anticipated  yesterday’s  develop- 
ments. Ostensibly  they  adjourned  to 
give  the  parties  opportunity  to  agree 
on  figures  bearing  on  the  wage  ques- 


tion, and  for  nothing  else.  Chairman 
Gray  expressed  the  hope  that  when  the 
parties  came  together  they  might  reach 
an  agreement  "on  nearly  all,  if  not  all,” 
of  the  points  in  dispute,  but  by  no  word 
or  sign  did  he  indicate  that  the  com- 
mission expected  they  would  do  more 
than  that  for  which  the  adjournment 
was  specifically  granted,  namely,  the 
agreement  of  the  parties  to  figures  on 
wages.  To  further  fortify  itself,  the 
commission,  in  a statement  from  its 
sub-committee,  Saturday  afternoon,  de- 
clared that  no  matter  what  agreement 
the  parties  might  arrive  at  the  com- 
mission was  not  bound  to  accept  it  for 
incorporation  in  its  award.  If  any 
agreements  the  parties  arrived  at  met 
with  the  full  approval  of  the  commis- 
sion, such  agreement  or  agreements 
would  be  made  part  of  the  commission’s 
award.  If  the  commission  did  not  ap- 
prove, the  amicable  adjustment  efforts 
were  all  in  vain. 


What  They  Expected. 

It  is  certain  that  Mr.  Mitchell  and 
the  other  miners’  representatives  went 
to  Washington  expecting  to  deal  with 
duly  accredited  representatives  of  all 
the  big  companies.  They  had  been  led 
to  believe  that  Mr.  MacVeagh  had  been 
authorized  to  offer  as  a basis  of  set- 
tlement a ten  per  cent,  advance  in 
wages,  a nine  hour  day  and  the  other 
concessions  previously  told  about. 

The  fact  that  they  found  the  appar- 
ently repudiated  Mr.  MacVeagh  the 
only  one  in  Washington  to  deal  with 
them  and  that  he  had  nothing  to  offer 
except  his  good  offices  left  them  with 
nothing  to  do  but  return  to  Scranton 
the  way  they  came.  Mr.  Mitchell,  Mr. 
Darrow  and  Mr.  Lloyd  will  be  back 
here  today  to  prepare  for  a continua- 
tion of  their  fight  before  the  commis- 
sioners. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Nov,  2, 6. 

[From  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  Nov.  27.] 


That  the  miners’  representatives  are 
decidedly  piqued  at  the  experience  they 
encountered  in  Washington  can  be 
gathered  from  the  following  statement 
issued  yesterday  afternoon  by  Messrs. 
Darrow  and  Lloyd. 

The  commission  adjourned  for  ten  days 
in  pursuance  of  an  arrangement  between 
the  parties  to  give  opportunity  for  con- 
ciliation on  account  of  a telegram  which 
we  understand  was  written  by  George  F. 
Baer  in  the  presence  of  and  with  the  con- 
sent of  every  railroad  concerned  and  was 
signed  by  Wayne  MacVeagh.  This  tele- 
gram was  written  after  a careful  read- 
ing of  the  tenative  agreement  which  had 
been  prepared  and  written  by  counsel  of 
both  parties  and  which  had  been  submit- 
ted to  the  commission.  At  the  request  of 
Mr.  MacVeagh,  Mr.  Mitchell,  Mr.  Darrow 
and  Mr.  Lloyd  went  to  Washington  to  con- 
sult upon  some  minor  details  of  the  agree- 
ment. There  was  no  friction  or  impor- 
tant disagreement  between  the  parties  at 
the  meeting  in  Washington.  Later  in  the 
day  and  after  the  conference  in  New 
York  with  the  independent  operators,  Mr. 
MacVeagh  received  a telegram  calling  oft 
all  negotiations  and  advising  that  the 
matter  be  settled  by  the  commission  in  a 
regular  hearing. 

The  man  who  wrote  the  telegram  to 
Judge  Gray  stating  that  the  main  fea- 
tures of  the  contract  were  acceptable, 
was  the  same  man  who  signed  the  tele- 
gram to  Wayne  MacVeagh  three  or  four 
days  later  stating  that  negotiations  must 
end. 

A copy  of  the  tentative  agreement  is 
in  the  hands  of  Hon  Wayne  MacVeagh, 
Mr.  Willcox,  of  the  Delaware  and  Hud- 
son company;  Carroll  D.  Wright  and 
probably  Mr.  Baer. 

We  can  see  no  reason  for  the  expression 
of  any  opinion,  the  facts  speak  for  them- 
selves. We  have  been  ready  at  all  times 
to  consult  with  any  one  in  interest  and 
make  any  reasonable  adjustment,  but 
we  have  no  anxiety  whatever  over  the 
case  or  its  results  and  shall  be  ready  for 
business  when  the  commission  meets. 

Clarence  S.  Darrow. 

Henry  D.  Lloyd. 


The  best  explanation  of  the  sudden 
and  somewhat  surprising  turn  which 
the  negotiations  took  is  given  by  a 
frank  member  of  the  independent  op- 
erators’ committee. 

An  Operator’s  View. 

“Mr.  Morgan  was  influenced  by 
Wayne  MacVeagh  to  believe  that  an 
amicable  adjustment  of  the  contro- 
versy was  desirable.  Mr.  Morgan,  prob- 
ably had  not  given  the  subject  a half 
hour’s  consecutive  thought,  and,  of 
course,  was  easily  influenced  by  the 
well-meaning,  but  too  enthusiastic  Mr. 
MacVeagh.  When,  however,  the  coal 
road  presidents  and  Mr.  Morgan  came 
to  consider  the  thing  soberly,  they  were 
not  long  in  arriving  at  the  conclusion 
that  whatever  authority  had  been  given 
Mr.  MacVeagh  to  negotiate  a settle- 
ment (out  of  court)  had  better  be  held 
in  abeyance. 

“Accordingly  when  our  independent 
operators’  committee  arrived  we  found 
the  coal  presidents  ready  to  agree  with 
our  line  of  reasoning.  There  was  really 
no  controversy  between  the  coal  pres- 
idents and  us  after  Tuesday  morning. 
How  much  power,  if  any,  they  delegated 
to  Mr.  MacVeagh,  I do  not  know,  but  I 
know  that  whatever  that  power,  if  any, 
was,  it  was  withdrawn  for  the  very 
reasons  we  had  to  offer. 

“The  public  does  not  want  the  con- 
troversy settled  out  of  court,  the  inde- 
pendent operators  would  never  consent 
to  settlement  out  of  court,  and  the  best 
thing  for  the  big  companies  is  that  it 
should  not  be  settled  ‘out  of  court.’  For 
the  best  interests  of  all  concerned,  the 
miners  included,  the  commission  should 
hear  the  whole  case  and  render  a de- 
cision. The  question  of  wages  could  be 
adjusted  amicably,  no  doubt,  but  the 
question  of  wages  is  not  by  any  means 
the  main  question  at  issue.  There 
should  a manifesto  from  the  commis- 


sion— and  a strong  manifesto,  at  that— 
on  the  matter  of  boycotts,  on  the  mat- 
ter of  an  employer’s  right  to  hire  and 
discharge  and  the  matter  of  “workmen 
having  the  right  to  sell  his  labor  when, 
where  and  how  he  chooses  without  let 
or  hindrance  from  a labor  union. 

Can  Prove  Assertion. 

“We  stand  ready  to  prove  what  we 
have  all  along  said  that  conditions  do 
not  warrant  an  increase  in  wages.  If 
the  commission  sees  fit  to  raise  wages 
after  hearing  our  testimony,  it  is  the 
commission  which  will  have  to  answer 
the  public’s  question  as  to  why  they 
pay  an  increased  price  for  coal.” 

Local  superintendents  of  the  coal 
companies,  in  common  with  the  inde- 
pendent operators,  are  highly  pleased 
at  the  new  turn  in  events.  Work  cn 
statistics  and  like  evidence  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  commission  is  being 
pushed  with  all  possible  haste.  Some 
companies  have  as  many  as  one  hun- 
dred men  working  on  these  statistics. 

The  ostensible  purpose  of  the  ad- 
journment of  the  commission  was  to 
give  opportunity  to  the  accountants  on 
both  sides  to  get  together  and  pgree 
upon  certain  facts  relating  to  the 
mathematics  of  the  controversy.  Noth- 
ing has  been  done,  so  far  in  this  line, 
and  as  Judge  Gray’s  hope  that  “nearly 
all,  if  not  all”  of  the  points  in  dispute 
might  be  amicably  adjusted,  is  not  to 
be  realized,  the  ten  day  recess,  it  would 
seem,  is  so  far  all  in  vain. 

It  is  likely  that  today  the  account- 
ants will  get  together  and  do  what  they 
can  between  now  and  next  Tuesday  to 
carry  out  the  purpose  of  the  adjourn- 
ment. Mr.  Darrow  said  yesterday  that 
the  miners’  accountants  were  ready  to 
go  ahead  with  the  work  and  with  the 
consent  of  the  operators  will  enter  upon 
this  task  today. 

There  was  a story  afloat  yesterday 


MiNfi  strike;  commission 


57 


to  the  effect  that  President  Mitchell  had 
summoned  the  executive  boards  here  to 
confer  about  the  failure  of  direct  ne- 
gotiations. Mr.  Mitchell  stated  to  a 


Tribune  reporter  last  night  that  this 
was  not  so.  He  had  informal  confer- 
ences yesterday  with  the  officers  of  the 
mine  workers  who  are  here  to  attend 


the  sessions  of  the  commission,  but  has 
not  even  considered  the  calling  together 
of  the  executive  boards. 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Nov.  27. 

[From.  Tire  Scranton  Tribune,  Nov.  28.] 


Thanksgiving  day  saw  little  activity 
in  mine  strike  matters.  The  only  par- 
ties to  the  controversy  who  were  at  all 
active  were  the  'miners’  representatives. 
Late  in  the  afternoon  Attorney  Clar- 
ence S.  Darrow,  Henry  D.  Lloyd,  Rev. 
Peter  Roberts,  Ph.D.,  and  a number  of 
the  United  Mine  V/orkers,  including 
National  President  Mitchell  and  Dis- 
trict Presidents  Nicholls,  Fahy  and 
Duffy,  had  a conference  at  the  Jermyn 
to  prepare  for  the  resumption  of  the 
hearings  before  the  commission  next 
Wednesday  morning. 

That  the  conference  was  more  than 
casual  is  attested  by  the  fact  that  Dis- 
trict President  Nicholls  was  unexpect- 
edly summoned  to  it  from  Carbondale, 
where  he  and  his  family  had  gone  to 
spend  the  day  with  friends.  The  only 
thing  given  out  regarding  the  confer- 
ence was  that  it  was  for  the  prepar- 
ation of  testimony. 

The  Next  Witness. 

Attorney  Darrow  could  not  say  defi- 
nitely who  the  next  witness  will  be 
after  the  cross-examination  of  Rev.  Dr. 
Roberts  is  completed.  The  likelihood  is, 
however,  that  it  will  be  District  Presi- 
dent Nicholls.  This  was  the  programme 
before  the  ten-day  recess  was  taken. 

The  operators  promise  some  interest- 
ing figures  regarding  wages.  One  com- 
pany, in  anticipation  of  a controversy, 
kept  tabs  on  its  contract  miners  for 
five  months,  just  preceding  the  strike, 
to  ascertain  how  much  time  they  actu- 
ally spent  in  the  mines,  and  will  show 
to  the  commission  that  the  average 
hours  of  labor  for  a contract  miner  are 
not  quite  six  a day.  This  will  be  in 
the  nature  of  a surprise  to  the  miners 
of  the  company  in  question,  as  they 
were  not  aware  that  tabs  were  being 
kept  on  them. 

A lively  discussion  can  be  expected 
almost  any  day  after  the  hearings  are 


resumed.  It  will  be  precipitated  by  the 
operators  directly  or  indirectly  asking 
the  commission  to  make  an  announce- 
ment that  the  question  of  recognition  is 
in  no  wise  before  the  commission  for 
action. 

Miners’  Contention. 

The  miners’  representatives  will  con- 
tend that  the  o.uestion  is  before  the 
commission,  because  it  was  one  of  the 
four  matters  in  dispute  between  the 
companies  and  their  employes  and  they 
agreed  to  submit  to  the  commission  the 
matters  in  dispute  between  themselves 
and  their  employes. 

The  operators  confidently  expect  the 
commission  will  unhesitatingly  rule  that 
the  question  of  recognition  of  the  union 
was  specifically  excepted  from  the  mat- 
ters to  be  dealt  with  by  the  commis- 
sion, and  that  as  far  as  the  commis- 
sion is  concerned  it  does  not  care  to 
hear  anything  further  on  this  particu- 
lar subject.  Even  though  the  commis- 
sion decides  the  question  as  not  before 
it  for  a decision,  the  miners  will  con- 
tend that  it  should  be  discussed  so  that 
the  commissioners  may  be  enlightened 
as  to  its  merits,  and  thereby  be  in  posi- 
tion to  recommend  or  disapprove  it  as 
a means  of  preventing  further  con- 
flicts. 

G-ot  on  the  Secord. 

At  the  very  outset  of  the  hearings, 
Attorney  Wolverton,  in  an  incidental 
way,  got  it  on  the  record  that  the  oper- 
ators insist  that  the  question  of  recog- 
nition is  not  before  the  commission. 
This  having  been  done,  the  operators 
proceeded,  as  they  view  it,  securely,  to 
combat  the  contentions  in  favor  of 
recognition  as  advanced  by  President 
Mitchell. 

The  purpose  of  the  operators,  sup- 
posedly, in  doing  this  was  to  put  their 
side  of  the  case  before  the  public.  It 
was  a matter  of  general  comment  that 


all  the  lengthy  discussion  on  this  sub- 
ject, as  far  as  the  operators  were  con- 
cerned, was  addressed  to  the  press  box 
rather  than  the  commission. 

Both  sides  are  preparing  for  a lively 
battle  when  this  point  is  raised,  and,  it 
is  a pretty  safe  guess,  the  commission- 
ers are  also  preparing  to  deal  with  it. 

What  MaeVeagh  Says. 

Concerning  the  breaking  off  of  nego- 
tiations for  amicable  adjustment  of  the 
strike  controversy,  Hon.  Wayne  Mac- 
Veagh  is  yesterday  quoted  in  a Wash- 
ington dispatch  as  follows: 

I said  then,  and  I repeat,  that  the  first 
move  in  the  direction  of  an  outside  agree- 
ment was  made  by  the  Delaware  and 
Hudson  Canal  company,  Mr.  Willcox,  its 
vice  president  and  its  general  counsel, 
drafted  an  agreement  which  his  company 
was  prepared  to  accept,  but  it  was  not 
satisfactory  to  the  other  companies. 
While  I was  still  cross-examining  Mr. 
Mitchell  I was  asked  to  meet  him  and  his 
counsel  in  conference  to  make  an  effort 
to  reach  some  adjustment  of  an  amicable 
nature. 

The  matters  in  dispute  we  discussed  on 
different  occasions  and  ’at  great  length, 
and  at  last,  with  the  assistance  of  E.  B. 
Thomas,  the  president  of  the  two  com- 
panies I represent,  the  basis  as  we 
thought,  of  a possible  adjustment  was 
reached.  When  this  was  submitted  to 
the  gentlemen  who,  with  Mr.  Thomas, 
had  signed  the  letter  to  the  president, 
they  all  concurred  in  approving  it  as  a 
basis  of  negotiations. 

The  conference  held  here  yesterday  was 
called  by  me  in  following  out  the  line  of 
policy  which  had  been  agreed  upon.  I 
did  not  expect  Mr.  Mitchell  to  be  present, 
and  had  merely  asked  Mr.  Darrow  to 
meet  me  here  instead  of  in  Scranton.  The 
conference  was  intended  to  be  confined, 
and  actually  was  confined,  to  perfecting 
some  minor  matters  which  were  to  form 
the  basis  of  negotiations  for  an  amicable 
adjustment  of  all  difficulties,  in  case  the 
gentlemen,  who  signed  the  letter  to  the 
president  remained  of  the  same  opinion 
they  expressed  last  Friday. 


Proceedings  of  Friday,  Nov.  28. 

[From  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  Nov.  29.] 


President  John  Mitchell,  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers;  District  Presidents 
Nicholls,  Fahy  and  Duffy  and  some  of 
the  other  more  prominent  leaders  of 
the  organization  spent  nearly  all  day 
yesterday  and  a considerable  portion  of 
last  night  in  conference  at  the  Hotel 
Jermyn  with  Attorney  Clarence  S.  Dar- 
row and  Nelson  Lloyd,  their  represen- 
tatives before  the  arbitration  commis- 
sion. 

Mr.  Darrow,  when  seen  last  night, 


said  that  the  tabulated  scales  of  wages 
prepared  by  several  of  the  big  com- 
panies for  submission  before  the  com- 
mission have  been  received  by  the  mine 
workers  and  are  being  carefully  gone 
over  and  compared  with  the  similar 
schedules  prepared  by  the  latter. 

He  said  that  it  has  not  yet  been  de- 
cided who  will  be  put  on  the  stand 
after  the  cross-examination  of  Rev. 
Peter  Roberts,  by  Attorney  John  T. 
Lenahan,  is  concluded,  but  it  is  gener- 


ally believed  that  District  President 
Nicholls  will  be  the  man.  His  testi- 
mony will  deal  with  the  details  regard- 
ing existing  conditions  in  this  district, 
which  is  the  largest  in  the  anthracite 
field.  He  will  probably  be  followed  on 
the  stand  by  District  Presidents  Fahy 
and  Duffy. 

Alleged  Discrimination. 

It  was  learned  yesterday  that  an  im- 
portant point  to  be  brought  to  the  at- 


Proceedings  of  the  anthracite 


58 


tention  of  the  commission  is  the  alleged 
discrimination  shown  against  a number 
of  men  who  have  been  refused  employ- 
ment since  operations  were  resumed. 

District  President  Nicholls  claims 
that  in  this  district  alone  there  are 
about  2,000  men  who  were  employed  at 
various  mines  since  before  the  strike 
began,  but  who  have  been  unable  to 
get  their  places  back  since  it  ended. 
He  claims  that  these  men  have  been 
blacklisted  because  they  were  aggres- 
sive unionists. 

The  company  officials,  on  the  other 
hand,  contend  that  the  number  of  men 
who  have  been  refused  work  is  not  as 
large  as  the  miners  claim  it  is,  and  as- 
sert that  the  reason  for  not  giving  em- 
ployment to  those  who  have  been  re- 


fused is  that  they  were  actively  en- 
gaged in  either  open  lawlessness,  in- 
timidation or  boycotting  during  the 
progress  of  the  strike. 

The  operators  and  their  attorneys  will 
hold  a meeting  in  this  city  Wednesday 
or  Thursday,  at  which  they  will  decide 
upon  the  manner  in  which  their  case 
will  be  presented. 

An  TJtter  Falsehood. 

In  the  New  York  American  yester- 
day one  of  the  attorneys  for  the  min- 
ers is  quoted  as  having  said,  relative  to 
the  calling  off  of  the  peace  negotia- 
tions that  C.  D.  Simpson,  of  this  city, 
had  a conference  with  President  Baer 
“and  that  Mr.  Baer  then  went  before 
the  presidents  of  the  coal  roads  and 


told  them  some  interesting  news.  They 
were  ready  to  act  as  he  wanted  them  to 
after  they  received  this  news.  Further- 
more, Mr.  Watkins  himself  was  in  New 
York  at  the  same  time.  There  will  be 
some  startling  developments  when  the 
truth  behind  the  move  is  brought  out 
before  the  Strike  commission,  and  we 
are  determined  that  this"  shall  be  done.” 
Mr.  Simpson  yesterday  said  the 
story  was  an  utter  falsehood  and  that 
Mr.  Watkins  was  not  in  New  York  at 
the  time  he  was  as  stated  by  the  man 
who  allowed  himself  to  be  interviewed. 
The  settlement  of  the  matter  in  dispute 
outside  of  the  commission  hhd  to  be 
abandoned,  he  said,  because  the  inde- 
pendent operators  were  determined  that 
justice  should  be  done  them. 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Nov.  29. 

[From  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  Dec.  1.] 


The  mine  strike  commissioners  will 
reassemble  here  tomorrow  to  proceed 
with  the  taking  of  testimony  in  the  in- 
terrupted hearings.  Commissioners, 
Watkins,  Clark  and  Parker,  comprising 
the  sub-committee  appointed  to  use  the 
the  good  offices  of  the  comm.ssion  in  as- 
sisting as  conciliators  in  bringing  about 
an  amicable  adjustment,  are  now  in  the 
city. 

The  other  commissioners  have  re-en- 
gaged their  rooms  at  the  Jermyn  for  an 
indefinite  period,  beginning  tomorrow. 

Have  Daily  Conferences. 

President  Mitchell,  Attorney  Darrow, 
Mr.  Lloyd,  Dr.  Weyl  and  others  of  the 


miners’  representatives  before  the  com- 
mission, are  in  daily  conference  regard- 
ing the  reopening  of  their  case.  The 
miners’  expert  accountants  are  going 
over  the  figures  of  the  companies  on 
the  matter  of  wages  in  pursuance  to  the 
suggestion  of  the  commission  that  such 
matters  of  mathematics  as  can  be 
agreed  upon  shall  pe  presented  jointly, 
and  without  attendant  controversy. 

There  is  still  a complete  absence  of 
any  definite  knowledge  as  to  how  long 
the  sessions  of  the  commission  will  last. 
Speculation  as  to  how  long  the  com- 
missioners will  be  here  taking  the  tes- 
timony, fixes  the  period  at  from  three 
weeks  to  three  months. 


Dr.  Roberts’  Testimony. 

When  the  commission  adjourned.  Rev. 
Peter  Roberts,  Ph.  D.,  was  on  the  stand 
about  to  be  cross-examined  by  John  T. 
Lenahan,  of  counsel  for  the  non-union 
miners. 

If  the  commission  takes  up  the  work 
where  it  left  off  the  first  day  of  the  sec- 
ond sitting  of  the  commission  will  like- 
ly develop  some  interesting  reading 
matter  as  Mr.  Lenahan,  it  is  under- 
stood, has  some  very  pointed  questions 
to  put  to  the  miners’  witnesses  regard- 
ing their  views  on  the  rights  and 
wrongs  of  the  non-unionist. 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Dec.  1. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Deo.  2.] 


Today  the  mine  strike  commissioners 
will  arrive  here  and  take  up  the  work 
they  left  off  ten  days  ago  when  a re- 
cess was  taken  for  the  purpose  of  giv- 
ing the  parties  to  the  controversy  op- 
portunity to  effect  an  amicable  settle- 
ment of  “nearly  all,  if  not  all”  the 
matters  in  dispute. 

The  commissioners  will  have  a con- 
ference at  Hotel  Jermyn  tonight  to 
hear  from  Messrs.  Clark,  Parker  and 
Watkins,  the  sub-committee  appoint- 
ed to  remain  here  to  represent  the 
commission  as  conciliators  in  the 
peace  negotiations. 

Resume  Hearings  Tomorrow. 

The  hearings  are  scheduled  to  be  re- 
sumed at  10  o’clock  tomorrow  morn- 
ing in  the  superior  court  room.  No 
definite  details  as  to  the  programme 
to  be  followed  have  come  to  the  surface, 
but  it  is  thought  by  some  that  the  par- 
ties in  interest  will  renew  the  work  in 
hand  with  an  expectation  of  no  fur- 
ther halts  for  possible  settlement  “out 
of  court,”  and  a determination  to 
thoroughly  thresh  out  every  question 
involved  in  the  controversy. 


The  breaking  off  of  the  peace  nego- 
tiations seems  to  give  general  satis- 
faction to  the  public  if  the  newspapers 
can  be  taken  to  be  reflectors  of  public 
views. 

“It  is  best  for  all  that  the  president's 
strike  commission  proceed  as  it  start- 
ed and  complete  the  work  for  which 
it  was  created.  There  were  many 
thoughtful  citizens  who  preferred  to 
have  the  whole  subject  thoroughly 
considered  by  the  tribunal  acting  un- 
der the  president’s  appointment.  It 
was  a mistake  from  the  public  point 
of  view  to  attempt  to  settle  the  strike 
‘out  of  court.’  The  commission  should 
proceed  with  its  inquiry.  The  com- 
mission exists  for  the  purpose  of  set- 
tling the  whole  matter.” 

The  above  is  a composite  expression 
of  editorials  of  leading  papers  of  the 
large  cities.  At  first  there  were  some 
papers  expressing  regret  at  the  fail- 
ure of  the  negotiations  but  such  ex- 
pressions are  no  longer  heard.  Every- 
body, it  seems,  is  quite  pleased  now 
that  peace  negotiations  were  broken 
0 ft. 


The  Possible  Exception. 

If  there  is  a single  exception  to  this 
rule,  as  there  is  said  to  be  to  every 
rule,  that  exception  is  probably  the 
miners’  representatives.  Had  the  hear- 
ings ended  with  the  adjournment  ten 
days  ago,  the  miners  would  be  in  a 
most  favorable  light  before  the  public. 
Their  story  of  the  case  as  told  by  Presi- 
dent Mitchell  would  stand  without 
refutation,  or  with  only  such  refuta- 
tion as  came  from  the  declaratory 
“questions”  of  the  coal  companies’ 
counsel  in  their  cross-examination,  and 
together  with  this  advantage  they 
would  obtain  in  all  likelihood,  in  the 
matter  of  concessions,  as  much  as  the 
commission  will  allow  them. 

But,  be  that  as  it  may,  the  recess  did 
no  harm  and  possibly  will  result  in 
much  good  to  the  miners.  The  commis- 
sion can  not  well  give  them  less  than 
the  operators  offered  in  the  tentative 
proposition  for  amicable  settlement. 
The  miners  know  they  are  going  to  get 
something.  This  relieves  them  from 
concern  on  the  score  of  their  possibly 
being  “non-suited.”  The  operators  have 
admitted  liability.  Now  the  only  con- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


cern  of  the  miners  is  how  much  better 
will  they  fare  at  the  hands  of  the  com- 
missioners than  if  the  peace  proposition 
had  not  been  withdrawn. 

What  the  commission  will  have  to 
say  on  the  matter  of  the  failure  of  the 
recess  to  accomplish  its  purpose  will  be 


attentively  listened  to,  it  is  safe  to 
say.  As  far  as  the  commission  is  con- 
cerned, the  record  clears  it  of  any  re- 
sponsibility for  the  ten  days’  loss  of 
time,  for  the  record  shows  the  recess 
was  granted  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
saving  time.  If  the  parties  to  the  con- 


59 

troversy  wasted  this  time  in  efforts  at 
accomplishing  what  it  appears  they 
had  no  assurance  was  not  an  impossi- 
bility, the  commission  is  in  no  .wise  to 
be  criticized. 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Dec.  2. 

[From.  Tire  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec.  3.] 


Contrary  to  expectations,  the  miners, 
propose  to  put  on  witnesses  from  the 
Hazleton  district  instead  of  from  this 
district,  when  the  hearings  before  the 
strike  commission  are  resumed  this 
morning-. 

A score  of  men,  women  and  children, 
who  are  to  tell  the  story  of  conditions 
in  the  Hazleton  district  as  the  miners 
see  them,  arrived  here  yesterday,  and 
during  the  afternoon  and  evening  were 
drilled  in  their  parts  by  Attorneys  Clar- 
ence S.  Darrow,  John  J.  Murphy  and 
B.  J.  McCarthy,  who  will  lead  in  the 
conduct  of  the  miners’  case  during  this 
part  of  the  examination.  Mr.  McCarthy 
is  a Hazleton  attorney,  who  was  taken 
into  the  case  for  this  especial  purpose. 
For  years  he  was  an  agent  for  Eckley 
B.  Coxe,  and  on  the  death  of  the  latter 
entered  the  law.  He  was  at  one  time 
a mine  foreman,  and  for  over  twenty 
years  acted  as  a representative  of  Mr. 
Coxe  in  business  and  politics.  The 
miners’  attorneys  claim  he  is  a most 
valuable  addition  to  their  forces. 

The  purpose  of  taking  up  the  Hazle- 
ton district  first,  instead  of  the  Scran- 
ton district,  is  not  divulged  by  the 
miners’  representatives,  but  it  is  sup- 
posed it  is  that  they  may  start  off  their 


detailed  story  with  a recital  of  what 
they  contend  are  the  worst  conditions 
existing  in  the  regions. 

Still  Have  Hopes. 

The  fact  that  in  answering  the  Mac- 
Veagh  invitation  to  meet  the  miners’ 
representatives  in  Washington,  the  op- 
erators said  they  thought  nothing 
gained  by  it  “at  the  present,”  left  a 
lurking  hope  in  the  breasts  of  the 
miners  that  the  peace  negotiations  are 
not  permanently  abandoned.  If  it 
should  come  that  the  hearings  are  dis- 
pensed with,  the  miners  want  that  the 
best  story,  or  rather  the  worst  story, 
they  can  tell  shall  be  before  the  public. 
The  Hazleton  witnesses,  as  one  of  the 
attorneys  put  it,  “will  tell  a story  that 
will  fairly  shock  the  commission.” 

This  same  attorney  admitted  that  the 
peace  negotiations  are  still  hanging  fire 
and  said  he  would  not  be  surprised  if 
another  active  attempt  at  amicable  ad- 
justment would  be  made  in  the  course 
of  two  weeks.  An  attorney  for  the  other 
side  declared  that  while  it  was  true  the 
peace  negotiations  had  not  been  wholly 
abandoned,  there  was  little  or  no  possi- 
bility of  them  being  taken  up  again. 
“The  thing  is  going  to  be  threshed  out 


before  the  commission,”  said  he,  “and 
nothing  except  the  mathematics  of  the 
wage  feature  of  the  case  will  be  a sub- 
ject of  amicable  agreement.” 

Bishop  Spalding  was  the  first  of  the 
commissioners  to  return  to  this  city. 
He  arrived  from  Peoria,  111.,  yesterday 
morning,  and  went  to  Bishop  Hoban’s 
residence,  where  he  will  continue  as  a 
guests  during  the  session  of  the  com- 
mission. Judge  Gray  came  at  5.30  from 
his  home  in  Wilmington  and  took  up 
his  quarters  at  the  Jermyn.  General 
Wilson  and  Colonel  Wright,  with  As- 
sistant Recorders  Mosely  and  Neill,  ar- 
rived at  10.30  and  went  to  the  Jermyn. 

Had  a Conference. 

Bishop  Spalding  repaired  to  the 
Jermyn  at  8.30  o’clock  and  met  Judge 
Gray,  Mr.  Clark,  Mr.  Watkins  and  Mr. 
Parker.  When  General  Wilson  and 
Colonel  Wright  came  at  10.30  a confer- 
ence was  held  and  a report  heard  from 
Messrs.  Clark,  Watkins  and  Parker, 
the  sub-committee  left  behind  to  rep- 
resent the  commission  as  conciliators 
in  the  peace  negotiations.  Another  con- 
ference will  likely  be  held  this  morn- 
ing before  the-  session  begins. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Dec.  3. 

[ From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Deo.  A.] 


Ridiculous  as  it  may  seem  to  some, 
it  is  not  without  difficulty  that  a man 
“up  the  tree”  watching  the  resumed 
proceedings  before  the  mine  strike  com- 
mission, gets  away  from  the  idea  that 
negotiations  for  an  amicable  adjust- 
ment “out  of  court”  of  “nearly  all,  if 
not  all”  the  matters  in  dispute  between 
the  operators  and  the  miners  are  still 
on,  and  that  before  many  days  the  com- 
missioners will  find  themselves  con- 
fronted with  nothing  more  than  the 
easy  task  of  giving  approval  to  a basis 
of  settlement  jointly  presented  by  the 
parties  to  the  controversy. 

An  attorney  for  the  miners  confidently 
said  Tuesday  that  the  commission’s 
sessions  for  taking  testimony  would  be 
concluded  inside  of  two  weks.  Yester- 
day’s proceedings  tended  strongly  to 
corroborate  this  statement. 

When  the  recess  was  taken  it  was  for 
the  primal  purpose  of  giving  time  to  the 
accountants  to  get  together  and  agree 
on  certain  facts  regarding  wages.  Yes- 
terday when  the  commission  resumed 
its  sittings,  both  sides  confessed  they 
had  nothing  to  offer  as  yet  along  this 


line.  The  day  was  consumed  in  the 
presentation  of  testimony  regarding 
conditions  at  the  collieries  of  Coxe 
Bros.  & Co.,  of  Hazelton,  which  com- 
pany is  not  represented  at  the  hear- 
ings. The  attorneys  for  the  coal  com- 
panies sat  idly  by  all  day  long  and  per- 
mitted the  witnesses  for  the  miners  to 
come  and  go  without  cross-examina- 
tion. With  the  suspicion  in  mind  that 
the  peace  negotiations  are  not  com- 
pletely abandoned  it  looked  very  much 
as  if  yesterday’s  proceedings  were 
nothing  more  or  less  than  “killing 
time.” 

Other  Operators  Entered. 

The  feature  of  the  day  was  the  en- 
trance of  the  independent  operators  of 
the  lower  region  as  parties  to  the  con- 
troversy. The  Lehigh  Coal  and  Navi- 
gation company  also  came  in.  This 
company  and  the  lower  region  independ- 
ents had  not  agreed  till  yesterday  to 
abide  by  the  commission’s  findings. 
Now,  the  leading  operators  of  the  whole 
region,  with  the  exception  of  Coxe  Bros. 
& Co.,  are  parties  to  the  agreement.  The 


new  comers  are  represented  by  Samuel 
Dickson,  of  Philadelphia,  and  George  R. 
Bedford,  of  Wilkes-Barre. 

In  making  his  bow  to  the  commission 
Mr.  Dickson  came  within  an  ace  o' 
starting  the  bother  that  must  some 
time  come  over  the  disputed  point  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  matter  of  recogni- 
tion of  the  union  is  before  the  com- 
mission for  consideration.  The  oper- 
ators contend  that  it  is  not.  The 
miners  with  equal  emphasis  insist  that 
it  is;  that  it  is  the  fourth  of  the  four 
demands  of  the  Shamokin  convention 
and  consequently  one  of  “the  matters 
in  dispute”  between  the  operators  and 
their  employes,  which  the  operators 
agreed  should  be  submitted  to  the  com- 
mission for  adjudication,  and  that  hav- 
ing agreed  to  such  adjudication,  the 
operators  could  not  later  withdraw  from 
the  consideration  of  the  commission  any 
one  or  more  of  the  matters  submitted, 
by  stating  in  their  answers  that  such 
or  such  a thing  was  excepted  from  the 
disputes  which  the  commission  should 
settle. 

Both  sides  and  the  commission  have 


60 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


religiously  avoided  bringing  up  this 
point  for  a final  decision.  The  oper- 
ators do  not  want  that  the  decision 
should  come  until  they  have  had  op- 
portunity of  putting  before  the  public, 
through  the  commission,  their  reasons 
for  not  wanting  to  recognize  the  union. 
The  miners  do  not  want  the  decision 
until  they  have  put  in  all  possible  argu- 
ment to  sustain  their  contention  that  it 
is  a desirable  thing  for  the  commission 
to  recommend.  The  commission  knows 
that  it  has  a ticklish  duty  to  perform 
and  does  not  want  to  be  forced  to  per- 
form it,  hoping  that  something  will 
eventuate  to  relieve  them  from  the 
performance. 

Diplomatic  Judge  Gray. 

Mr.  Dickson’s  clients,  knowing  this 
testy  question  was  still  hanging  fire, 
directed  him  to  have  an  understanding 
about  it  before  he  committed  them  to 
the  commission’s  powers.  He  pro- 
ceeded to  discuss  the  matter  and  was 
on  the  point  of  requesting  a point- 
blank  expression  of  where  the  com- 
mission stood  in  the  matter,  when 
Judge  Gray  interrupted  him  with  the 
same  non-committal  statement  with 
which  he  once  before  staved  off  the  im- 
pending bother,  namely,  that  the  “com- 
mission’s powers  were  circumscribed  by 
the  provisions  of  the  letter  of  submis- 
sion.” 

This  had  the  effect  of  silencing,  if  not 
satisfying,  Mr.  Dickson.  He  took  his 
seat,  but  his  countenance  plainly  told 
that  he  was  still  wanting  a more  ex- 
plicit expression  of  the  commission's 
position.  Mr.  Darrow  came  to  the  res- 
cue by  introducing  a new  subject  and 
the  incident  closed — for  the  present. 
The  matter  must  be  decided  sometime, 
and  when  it  is  up  for  a decision  there 
will  be  fireworks. 

Mild  objection  was  made  by  counsel 
for  the  coal  companies  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  testimony  regarding  the  Coxe 
company,  because  it  is  not  a party  to 
the  hearing  and  the  statements  of  the 
miners’  witnesses  being  uncontroverted, 
unjust  prejudice  would  be  worked  to 
the  other  parties.  Judge  Gray  decided, 
after  consulting  the  other  commission- 
ers, to  take  the  testimony  under  the 
protest,  and  if  it  is  later  decided  to  be 
incompetent,  strike  it  from  the  record. 

The  hearing  of  the  miners’  witnesses 
was  proceeded  with  after  President 
Mitchell  had  given  some  explanations 
to  testimony  previously  given  by  him 
regarding-  the  increase  in  the  price  of 
coal  that  would  come  of  an  increase  in 
wages  such  as  asked  for  by  the  miners. 
According  to  expert  calculations,  he 
paid,  a 20  per  cent,  increase  in  wages 
would  not  increase  the  cost  of  coal 
more  than  ten  cents  a ton. 

The  Testimony  Heard. 

The  testimony  of  three  witnesses,  one 
of  them  a miner’s  wife,  and  half  a hun- 
dred photographs  of  miners’  homes 
were  presented  to  show  the  conditions 
in  the  Hazleton  region.  The  witnesses 
all  dealt  with  conditions  at  the  Coxe 
Bros.  & Co.  collieries.  Their  uncontro- 


verted stories  put  these  conditions  in  a 
very  sorry  light.  W.  H.  Taylor,  of  this 
city,  president  of  the  St.  Clair  Coal 
company,  of  Schuylkill,  and  Commis- 
sioner Watkins  conducted  some  inci- 
dental cross-examination  of  these  wit- 
nesses and  adduced  some  very  decided 
qualifications  of  their  statements. 

The  commissioners  listened  very  at- 
tentively to  the  testimony  regarding 
wages.  It  was  the  first  testimony  they 
had  heard  that  got  down  to  the  root  of 
the  matters  they  are  to  pass  upon. 

In  the  morning,  while  waiting  for  the 
commissioners -to  come  on  the  bench  to 
resume  their  interrupted  sittings,  the 
lawyers  and  other  representatives  of 
the  parties  in  interest  were  busy  shak- 
ing hands  and  chatting  about  the 
events  of  the  ten  days’  interval  since 
they  last  met.  The  crowd  of  onlookers 
outside  the  bar  enclosure  was  quite  as 
large  as  usual,  every  seat  and  all  the 
standing  room  being  occupied. 

After  the  commissioners  had  entered 
and  taken  their  seats,  Judge  Gray  de- 
livered himself  as  follows: 

We  trust  all  of  you  gentlemen  have  had 
a happy  Thanksgiving,  and  that  you 
have  returned  to  your  duties  in  a pleasing 
frame  of  mind. 

When  a recess  was  taken  by  the  com- 
mission for  the  purpose  of  giving  time  to 
those  interested  to  prepare  statistics  or 
data  as  to  wages,  hours  and  such  matters 
as  could  be  ascertained  with  certainty  by 
a proper  accounting,  *he  hope  was  ex- 
pressed by  me  on  behalf  of  the  commis- 
sion that  an  effort  to  reach  an  under- 
standing by  conciliatory  methods  to 
cover  the  important  points  involved  would 
be  made  in  the  interval. 

I should  net  now  refer  to  that  remark 
made  by  me  except  for  the  fact  that  there 
seems  to  have  been,,  notwithstanding 
that  statement,  some  misunderstanding, 
a wrong  impression,  received  by  some 
of  the  parties  to  the  controversy,  that  if 
an  understanding  was  reached  in  a con- 
ciliatory way  it  would  be  a settlement 
“out  of  court,”  and  that  • the  subject 
would  be  dismissed  without  further  inves- 
tigation on  our  part.  But  nothing  of  the 
kind  was  expressed.  I don't  think  that 
anything  was  said  that  would  justify  that 
belief. 

The  Sub-Committee. 

The  committee  of  three  commissioners 
was  here  during  the  recess  so  as  to  be  in 
touch  with  the  parties  on  both  sides  and 
to  forward  by  their  good  offices  the  move- 
ment for  arriving  at  an  understanding 
in  relation  to  facts  and  figures  which 
would  prove  by  their  very  nature  to  be 
indisputable.  But  such  committee,  we 
have  learned,  very  soon  found  that  this 
misunderstanding  to  which  I have  allud- 
ed had  gained  some  currency,  and  the 
committee  thereupon  gave  out  a state- 
ment w'hich  I will  read  and  which  ex- 
plains the  situation.  The  statements  is 
as  follow's: 

“Scranton,  Pa..  Nov.  22,  1902. 

“It  appears  that  there  is  some  misun- 
derstanding or  some  lack  of  understand- 
ing in  connection  with  the  recess  taken 
by  the  commission,  and  the  suggestion  In 
that  connection  that  possibly  the  contest- 
ants might  be  able  to  agree  upon  some  of 
the  important  points  Involved. 

“The  recess  was  desired  by  counsel  for 
both  sides  because  authoritative  state- 


ments of  hours  and  wages  which  are  be- 
ing prepared  are  not  as  yet  ready. 

“The  suggestion  was  made  that  perhaps 
some  agreement  might  be  reached  be- 
tween the  principals  which  would  sim- 
plify the  problem  and  assist  in  reaching 
the  proper  conclusion.  The  chairman, 
speaking  for  the  commission,  stated  that 
the  commission  would  gladly  co-operate 
as  far  as  it  could  consistently  be  done, 
in  furthering  an  effort  to  reach  an  un- 
derstanding through  conciliatory  means 
and  methods. 

“The  idea  has  gone  out  in  some  quar- 
ters that  the  matter  is  to  be  settled  with- 
’out  further  effort  or  responsibility  on  the 
part  of  the  commission.  This  idea  is  en- 
tirely wrong.  The  commission  will,  as  an- 
nounced, cheerfully  encourage  concilia- 
tory spirit  and  action  between  the  parties 
to  the  controversy,  but  the  commission 
has  not  surrendered,  and  will  not  surren- 
der jurisdiction  of  any  of  the  matters 
which  have  been  referred  to  it,  nor  re- 
sponsibility for  the  conclusion  reached. 
No  adjustment  can  be  made,  which  does 
not.  by  its  terms,  commend  itself  strongly 
enough  to  secure  the  approval  of  the  com- 
mission, and  its  incorporation  in  the 
award. 

"With  a view  and  for  the  purpose  of 
removing  any  misunderstanding  which 
might  exist,  the  sub-committee  of  the 
commission  invited  such  of  the  counsel 
.representing  the  several  interests  in- 
volved, as  could  be  reached  to  meet  this 
afternoon.” 

That  w-as  on  Saturday,  the  day  we  ad- 
journed. This  statement  was  made  on 
that  day.  and  as  promptly  as  could  be. 

This  declaration  of  the  committee  of 
the  commission  is  now  le-stated  and  af- 
firmed by  the  commission. 

Must  File  Statements. 

It  has  been  demonstrated  that  it  is  im 
portant  and  necessary  that  the  commis- 
sion, that  the  parties  before  it,  and  that 
the  public  shall  know  definitely  wno  are 
and  who  are  not  formally  and  properly 
parties  to  this  investigation.  Therefore 
it  will  be  necessary  for  counsel  represent- 
ing the  operators  who  have  not  yet  filed 
their  statements  to  file  them  not  later 
than  10  o’clock  tomorrow'  morning. 

The  commission  also  wishes  to  say 
that  parties  to  the  investigation  and 
award  may  not  withdraw  from  here  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  other  parties  to 
the  controversy.  We  shall  be  glad  to 
have  the  entire  field  represented  in  this 
investigation,  and  the  entire  subject  cov- 
ered before  any  award  that  can  be  made. 
All  interested  parties  if  they  should 
choose  to  be  parties  to  this  hearing  should 
so  announce. 

I hope,  gentlemen,  that  what  I have 
said  and  what  I have  read  from  tne  dec- 
laration made  by  the  committee  and  the 
statement  I have  just  made  will  remove 
any  doubt  as  to  the  status  of  the  com- 
mission in  regard  to  any  matters  ot 
agreement  that  have  been  arrived  at  or 
may  be  arrived  at  hereafter  between  the 
parties  to  the  controversy. 

When  Judge  Gray  had  concluded. 
Samuel  Dickson,  one  of  Philadelphia's 
leading  lawyers,  arose  and  announced 
that  himself  and  George  R.  Bedford,  of 
Wilkes-Barre,  were  present  to  repre- 
sent the  Lehigh  Coal  and  Navigation 
company,  and  a number  of  independ- 
ent operators  of  the  lower  region.  The 
list  included  all  the  leading  independ- 
ents excepting  Coxe  Bros.  & Co. 

At  this  Juncture  the  threatened  pre- 


clpitation  of  the  "recognition”  dispute 
occurred.  After  stating  that  it  was 
possibly  a superfluous  caution  to  men- 
tion the  matter,  Mr.  Dickson  stated  he 
wanted  it  understood  that  his  clients 
became  a party  to  the  proceedings  with 
the  understanding  that  the  powers  of 
the  commission  were  circumscribed  by 
the  provisions  of  the  letter  of  submis- 
sion, under  which  the  commission  was 
formed.  He  was  going  on,  apparently, 
to  explicitly  state  that  his  companies 
understood  the  question  of  recognition 
was  not  before  the  commission  for  ac- 
tion, when  Judge  Gray,  divining  his  in- 
tention and  possibly  wishing  to  avert 
a precipitation  of  the  pending  conflict 
on  this  point,  interrupted  him  with  the 
declaration  that  the  commission  has 
already  made  an  announcement  that  it 
had  to  deal  with  only  such  matters  as 
had  been  submitted  to  it  by  the  sub- 
mission proposition,  made  by  the  par- 
ties who  signed  the  letter  to  President 
Roosevelt  and  accepted  by  Mr.  Mitchell 
on  behalf  of  the  miners. 

No  Specific  Decision. 

Thus  the  incident  ended  without  a 
specific  decision  as  to  whether  or  not 
"recognition”  is  one  of  the  “matters  in 
dispute”  between  employers  and  em- 
ployes. 

After  referring  to  the  ostensible  pur- 
pose of  the  recess,  Mr.  Darrow  stated 
that  so  far  the  Delaware  and  Pludson 
company  was  the  only  one  of  the  re- 
spondents to  submit  its  books  for  ex- 
amination by  the  miners’  accountants 
and,  singularly  enough,  Mr.  Culver,  the 
company’s  comptroller,  who  is  to  go  on 
the  stand  to  testify  to  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  figures,  is  ill  of  bronchitis 
and  probably  will  not  be  about  for  a 
couple  of  days. 

Hon.  Wayne  MacVeagh  arose  at  this 
juncture  and  commanded  eager  listen- 
ers while  he  said: 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  understand 
how  any  misunderstanding  could  arise. 
We  understood  that  the  recess  was  taken 
to  give  us  an  opportunity  to  examine  our 
books  and  produce  a statement,  the  other 
side  to  be  allowed  to  examine  it,  and  to 
place  it  then  before  the  commission  as 
an  agreed  statement  of  facts.  That  was 
the  primary  object  of  the  recess.  During 
the  recess  every  effort  has  been  made  to 
secure  that  result.  We  are,  however,  at 
least  a day  behind  on  our  figures.  We 
have  used  between  forty  and  fifty  ex- 
pert accountants  and  we  never  relaxed 
our  efforts,  because  we  understand  that 
everything  we  did  was  subject  to  the  ex- 
amination and  approval  and  decision  cf 
the  commission. 

Therefore  we  have  utilized  every  mo- 
ment of  the  recess,  but  we  are  one  or 
two  days  short.  We  hope  to  have  our 
figures  in  a summary  which  will  be  in- 
telligible to  the  commission.  As  to  the 
second  object  of  the  recess,  that  was 
also  taken  into  consideration,  and  prog- 
ress was  made  by  the  companies  I repre- 
sent towards  reaching  an  agreement  with 
our  friends  on  the  other  side  on  several 
important  matters.  When  the  telegram 
signed  by  me  was  sent  to  you  as  chair- 
man of  the  commission,  it  was  supposed 
that  a general  basis  in  several  important 
respects  wore  acceptable  to  both  sides. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

Afterwards  on  further  reflection  the 
gentlemen  who  signed  the  letter  thought 
it  better  not  to  pursue  that  line  of  con- 
ference further  and  that  it  was  better  to 
submit  the  matter  to  the  commission, 
rather  than  agree  upon  the  basis  and 
then  submit  the  agreement  to  the  com- 
mission. 

“But  it  never  was  contemplated  that 
anything  could  be  done  except  unquali- 
fiedly by  and  through  the  commission.  I 
am  sorry  that  some  gentlemen  thought 
that  there  was  an  effort  made  to  commit 
the  independent  men.  I acted  for  the 
companies  I represent,  and  it  was  on'y 
after  I received  the  qualified  approval  of 
my  clients  that  the  matter  could  be  com- 
municated, and  it  was  communicated. 
That  was  simply  an  effort  to  carry  out 
the  suggestions  of  the  commission  in 
every  respect. 

Acted  in  Harmony. 

Judge  Gray  said  he  had  no  doubt  but 
chat  Mr.  MacVeagh  acted  in  harmony 
with  the  commissioners’  idea  of  the  pur- 
pose of  the  adjournment.  In  trying  to 
effect  an  amicable  agreement  on  the 
different  matters  in  dispute  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh, the  judge  said,  was  acting 
wholly  in  line  with  the  purposes  of  the 
recess.  "We  said  we  hoped  that  an 
agreement  might  be  reached  on  nearly 
all,  if  not  all,  the  matters  in  dispute,” 
continued  Judge  Gray,  “and,  I might 
say,  we  will  entertain  that  hope,  and 
stand  ready  as  before  to  co-operate 
with  the  parties  to  the  controversy  in 
affecting  the  hoped  for  result.” 

Said  Mr.  Darrow:  "We  recognize 

the  immense  amount  of  work  involved 
in  this  case.  We  believe  we  ought  to 
get  together  and  agree  on  important 
facts.  My  clients  are  ready  to  do  this 
at  any  time.” 

"Unless,”  said  Judge  Gray,  “some 
such  common  sense  method  of  eliminat- 
ing some  of  the  matters  in  dispute  is 
adopted,  the  average  expectancy  of 
life  of  these  commissioners  will  prevent 
their  ever  seeing  the  end  of  this  case.” 

Attorney  Dickson  stated  that  one  of 
his  companies  had  been  asked  by  the 
miners’  expert  accountant  to  furnish  its 
profit  and  loss  account.  This,  he  said, 
the  company  would  not  do.  The  ques- 
tion at  issue  was  whether  or  not  the 
miners  are  paid  fair  wages.  They  are 
entitled,  he  said,  to  fair  wages  for  their 
labor  whether  or  not  the  company  is 
making  or  losing  money. 

Mr.  Darrow  said  the  request  was 
prompted  by  the  answers  of  some  of 
the  companies  to  the  miners’  demand 
for  more  wages,  which  answers  were 
in  effect  that  the  companies  could  not 
afford  to  pay  more  wages  than  they  are 
now  paying.  If  the  companies  are  will- 
ing to  have  it  understood  that  the  ques- 
tion of  their  profits  or  losses  do  not 
enter  into  the  matter  of  the  wages  they 
should  pay,  the  miners  would  be  per- 
fectly satisfied  to  let  it  stand  that  way. 
If  not,  it  would  be  reasonable,  he 
thought,  for  the  companies  to  submit 
their  profit  and  loss  accounts. 

After  some  informal  talk  about  the 
details  of  the  work  of  examining  the 
companies  pay  rolls  the  taking  of  testi- 
mony was  resumed. 


61 


The  First  Witness. 

National  President  Mitchell,  of  the 
mine  workers,  was  the  first  witness 
called.  He  was  examined  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row as  follows: 

Q.  In  your  examination  by  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh you  are  asked  some  questions  in 
reference  to  the  increased  cost  of  coal. 
What  was  the  output  of  coal  last  year? 

A.  Approximately  60,000,000  tons  of  an- 
thracite. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much  20  per  cent, 
increase  in  the  cost  of  wages,  such  as  we 
ask  for  here,  how  much  it  means  of  an 
increase  in  the  cost? 

A.  The  calculations  I have  made  are 
based  upon  the  statements  of  the  opera- 
tors. Mr.  Baer  in  his  statement  to  Com- 
missioner Wright  of  the  labor  depart- 
ment, says  that  in  the  year  1901  all  the 
companies  paid  $66,000,000  in  wages.  The 
Mining  and  Engineering  Journal  making 
a calculation  as  to  the  increased  cost  of 
coal  which  followed  an  increase  of  10 
per  cent,  in  wages  concludes  that  that 
amounted  to  less  than  5 cents  a ton.  so 
that  it  would  increase  the  cost  of  coal 
less  than  10  cents  a ton  to  increase  the 
wages  twenty  per  cent.  I have  made 
calculations  based  on  the  statements  r( 
Mr.  Baer  as  to  the  wages  paid  by  his 
company.  He  states  that  the  average 
wages  to  his  employes  was  $1.98  a day. 
Applying  that  as  the  average  income  of 
mine  workers  in  the  anthracite  field  it 
would  amount  to  $53,000,000,  which  would 
be  about  SS  cents  a ton.  so  that  20  per 
cent,  on  that  would  add  about  17  cents 
a ton. 

Q.  Already  they  have  increased  the 
price  of  coal  without  increasing  wages? 

A.  A general  increase  of  fifty  cents  a 
ton. 

By  the  Chairman: 

Q.  Was  not  that  increase  made  tempor- 
arily? Was  it  not  made  to  compensate 
for  looses  during  the  strike?  A.  Yes.  sir. 
I believe  so.  I understood  that  increase 
was  to  cease  on  Jan.  1. 

Q.  That  fifty  cents  amounted  to  $2,5CO.- 
000  a month? 

A.  Yes,  on  the  basis  of  5,000,000  tons  per 
month. 

W.  H.  Taylor  then  cross-examined 
Mr.  Mitchell  briefly,  as  follows: 

Q.  I understand  that  your  deduction  re- 
garding the  advance  of  20  per  cent,  had 
to  do  entirely  with  wages? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  don’t  take  anything  else  into 
consideration  in  figuring  on  the  20  per 
cent,  increased  cost? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-Examination. 

Attorney  James  H.  Torrey,  of  counsel 
for  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  company, 
next  cross-examined  Mr.  Mitchell: 

Q.  I think  that  you  stated  that  40  per 
cent,  of  the  production  of  the  mines  was 
in  steam  sizes? 

A.  No.  sir;  I said  that  was  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Baer. 

Q.  And  that  is  to  bp  sold  in  competition 
with  bituminous  coal? 

A.  No.  sir:  I don't  know  that.  Mr. 

Baer  said  so. 

Q.  You  don’t  deny  it? 

A.  I am  not  prepared  to  admit  It. 

Q.  Your  60  per  cent,  includes  the  wash- 
ery  crai  also,  does  it  not? 

A.  T understand  so. 

Q.  You  have  taken  into  consideration 
all  this  in  your  calculations  without  con- 
sidering that  washery  coal  costs  prac- 
tically nothing? 


62 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


A.  If  any  proportion  of  it  costs  nothing 
for  labor  then  the  twenty  per  cent,  in- 
crease would  apply  only  to  those  who  do 
receive  wages. 

Q.  Washery  coal  costs  about  five  cents 
a ton  for  labor,  and  you  have  taken 
that  into  consideration  in  your  estimate 
as  to  the  cost  of  labor  per  ton? 

A.  The  washery  coal  is  not  a very  im- 
portant factor. 

Q.  Then  your  calculations  are  some- 
what subject  to  error  in  those  parts? 

A.  I have  explained  that  it  is. 

Q.  The  fifty  cents  increase  per  ton  of 
coal  was  placed  only  on  the  domestic 
or  prepared  sizes? 

A.  I am  not  sure. 

A few  questions  were  then  propound- 
ed to  Mr.  Mitchell  by  Hon.  Wayne  Mac- 
Veagh: 

Q.  I know  you  do  not  intend  to  mislead 
this  commission,  but  j'ou  must  be  mis- 
taken. I understand  that  before  the  in- 
crease of  ten  per  cent,  was  obtained  in 
1900  by  you  from  the  operators  the  labor 
cost  of  the  average  ton  of  coal  was  about 
what  according  to  your  best  judgment? 

A.  I don't  know  what  it  was. 

Q.  If  it  was  $1.20  then  as  I understand 
your  calculations,  ten  per  cent,  of  that 
would  be  12  cents  additional  cost  and  ten 
per  cent,  increase  would  increase  the  cost  i 
ten  per  cent,  and  you  say  that  they  raised 
the  cost  fifty  cents  a ton,  as  I understand 
it? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Therefore  you  have  the  commission 
believe  that  they  increased  the  cost  forty 
cents  for  themselves  on  sixty  million 
tons? 

A.  I am  not  sure  the  increase  was  made 
on  all  of  the  different  sizes,  but  I am  sure 
that  it  was  on  all  of  the  domestic  sizes. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  rhe  proportion  of 
the  domestic  sizes  to  the  other  sizes. 

Not  Sure  of  Proportions. 

A.  No;  I am  not  sure.  But  my  calcu- 
lations are  not  based  entirely  upon  the 
circulars  or  the  reports  of  the  railroad 
presidents.  They  show  the  increase  in 
the  seling  price  of  coal  and  the  govern- 
ment reports  show  that  it  was  higher 
than  any  year  previous  since  1880.  Mr. 
Olyphant’s  reports  showed  that  the  in- 
crease in  the  cost  per  ton  was  13  cents, 
while  the  increase  in  the  selling  price  was 
40  cents.  The  profit  under  those  figures 
would  be  23  cents  to  the  operator, 

Q.  When  the  increase  in  wages  means 
an  increase  in  the  profits  of  the  compa- 
nies, can  you  tell  me  why  thej’  should 
oppose  the  granting  of  the  increase? 

A.  The  operators  were  not  as  much 
opposed  to  granting  the  increase.  Mr. 
MacVeagh,  as  they  were  to  recognizing 
the  union. 

Q.  At  the  present  advance  of  20  per 
cent,  in  the  labor  cost  which  you  are 
asking,  suppose  it  should  go  up  to  $1.32, 
and  yon  asked  20  per  cent,  advance;  that 
would  be  26  cents  a ton;  would  not  the 
operators  profit  themselves  if  the  present 
advance  of  50  cents  a ton  were  continued? 

It  would  make  enormous  profits.  How 
can  you  account  for  their  opposition  to 
this  advance? 

A.  I cannot  account  for  it. 

This  last  answer  was  provocative  of 
a loud  burst  of  laughter  and  applause 
from  the  spectators.  General  Wilson 
appeared  to  be  very  much  nettled  at 
this,  and  Judge  Gray  gave  directions 
that  it  should  not  be  repeated.  “We  do 
not  wish  to  hear  any  demonstrations  of 


approval  or  disapprobation  from  the 
listeners.”  said  be. 

Photographers  John  E.  Whitman,  of 
Hazleton,  and  R.  H.  Herbst,  of  Free- 
land, were  sworn  to  identify  half  a 
hundred  photographs  they  had  made  of 
miners’  homes  at  the  direction  of  Rev. 
Peter  Roberts.  Mr.  Darrow  admitted 
they  -were  not  pictures  of  the  best  of 
the  homes  of  miners,  and  when  Gen- 
eral Wilson  asked  if  it  was  not  true 
that  they  were  the  worst,  Mr.  Darrow 
smilingly  said  he  believed  some  of  the 
worst  might  be  among  them. 

Judge  Gray  said  the  commission  did 
not  care  to  have  much  time  consumed 
in  offering  these  exhibits,  as  they  had 
been  through  the  region  themselves  and 
seen  thousands  of  miners’  homes.  He 
also  suggested  that  the  counsel  should 
not  lay  too  much  stress  on  the  matter 
of  miners’  homes. 

When  Attorney  Bedford  elicited  from 
Photographer  Whitman  that  it  was  Dr. 
Roberts  who  directed  him  to  make  the 
pictures,  he  provoked  a hearty  laugh, 
in  which  the  commissioners  could  not 
resist  sharing,  by  asking  seriously: 
“Who,  might  I ask,  is  Dr.  Roberts?” 
It  was  Mr.  Bedford’s  first  appearance 
at  the  hearings.  When  Dr.  Roberts 
was  pointed  out  to  him  at  the  sub- 
sidence of  the  laughter,  he  seemed  to 
recollect  having  heard  about  him,  and 
turning  to  Dr.  Roberts,  said;  “I  am 
pleased  to  make  your  acquaintance, 
doctor.” 

A Miner  Sworn. 

The  first  of  the  actual  miners  to  be 
called  to  the  stand  as  a witness  was 
then  put  on  for  examination  by  Mr. 
Darrow.  He  was  W.  H.  Dettrey.  an 
employe,  prior  to  the  strike,  of  Coxe 
Bros.  & Co.,  at  their  Derringer  colliery 
in  Eckley.  He  is  president  of  the  Der- 
ringer local,  a board  member  in  the 
Hazleton  district,  and  an  aspirant  to 
succeed  Thomas  Duffy  as  district  presi- 
dent. 

He  stated  that  his  age  is  40  years; 
that  he  has  been  working  in  or  about 
the  mines  since  he  was  nine  years  old; 
that  he  has  been  a miner  for  seventeen 
years,  and  a contract  miner  at  the  Der- 
ringer for  six  years.  He  was  one  of  the 
men  not  reinstated  when  the  strike  at 
the  Coxe  collieries  ended  a week  ago 
last  Tuesday,  and  claims  he  is  being 
blacklisted  because  of  his  activity  in 
the  union. 

At  this  juncture,  General  Counsel 
Willcox,  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
company,  objected  to  hearing  testi- 
mony regarding  the  Coxe  mines,  as  ex- 
plained previously.  It  was  brought  out 
that  the  Coxes  had  simply  replied  to 
the  invitation  to  become  a party  to  the 
hearings:  that  they  proposed  to  offer 
the  findings  of  the  commission  as  a 
basis  for  an  agreement  with  their  men. 
They  did  not  bind  themselves  to  accept 
it.  as  did  the  other  companies  repre- 
sented before  the  commission. 

Judge  Gray  said  the  commission 
would  take  the  testimony  and  decide 
later  whether  or  not  it  should  go  on  the 
record. 


Mr.  Wolverton  reserved  the  right  to 
cross-examine  these  witnesses  later  if 
the  company  advised  that  he  should 
do  so. 

In  answer  to  questions  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row, the  witness  gave  testimony  sub- 
stantially as  follows: 

At  the  Derringer,  the  men  are  paid 
by  the  yard  or  by  the  car.  The  high- 
est pay  by  the  yard  is  $5.25.  The  pay 
by  the  car  ranges  from  80  to  97  cents. 
The  car  has  a capacity  of  96  cubic  feet. 
The  dockage  reached  an  average  of  40 
per  cent,  in  the  early  part  of  1900.  Since 
the  1990  strike  it  has  decreased.  Cars 
were  liable  to  be  docked  by  a dozen 
different  officials. 

He  Lost  Some  Time. 

His  pay  did  not  exceed  $350  a year, 
for  the  last  couple  of  years,  but  he  lost 
some  time  by  reason  of  his  being  en- 
gaged in  work  for  the  union.  This  ex- 
planation was  adduced  by  a question 
from  Commissioner  Watkins.  The  wit- 
ness could  not  tell  Commissioner  Clark 
how  much  his  pay  would  have 
amounted  to  had  he  worked  every  day 
the  colliery  worked,  but  he  said  he  had 
worked  some  years  every  day  the  col- 
liery worked  and  earned  not  more  than 
$200.  Last  year’s  pay  of  $350  was  the 
best  he  ever  drew.  After  the  1900  strike 
the  foreman  gave  him  a better  place 
and  showed  him  many  favors,  presum- 
ably because  of  his  being  president  of 
the  local.  The  average  wages  of  a 
miner  at  this  colliery  were  from  $275 
to  $325  last  year  although  the  colliery 
worked  270  days. 

At  the  close  of  the  last  strike,  the  em- 
ployes of  the  Coxe  collieries  presented 
themselves  for  work  according  to  the 
directions  of  the  Wilkes-Barre  conven- 
tion. They  were  told  the  company  was 
not  ready  to  start.  After  some  confer- 
ences the  company  agreed  to  take  back 
2.651  of  their  3,0S0  employes,  the  remain- 
ing 429  to  go  on  the  waiting  list.  The 
429  men  who  were  on  the  waiting  list 
included  every  man  who  was  prominent 
in  the  union.  The  men  would  not  go 
back  under  this  offer,  and  the  strike 
was  continued.  Every  officer  of  the 
Derringer  local  except  the  treasurer  was 
on  the  list. 

Finally,  two  weeks  ago,  it  was  agreed 
that  the  men  should  return  on  condition 
that  the  company  did  not  have  to  take 
back  any  man  against  whom  a charge 
of  law-breaking  during  the  strike  was 
pending  or  such  men  as  had  been  dis- 
placed by  the  introduction  of  new  ma- 
chinery, like  patent  slate  pickers,  in- 
stalled during  the  strike. 

The  witness  and  five  others  prominent 
in  the  union  and  against  whom  there 
were  no  charges  of  law-breaking  pend- 
ing were  among  those  who  were  re- 
fused re-employment.  The  witness  had 
been  arrested  for  taking  two  revolvers 
from  a coal  and  iron  policeman,  for  as- 
sault and  battery  and  for  inciting  a riot, 
but  was  acquitted  on  all  three  charges. 

Fnder  the  company  rules  a contract 
miner  must  go  into  work  at  7 o’clock 
a.m.,  and  stay  there  until  5 o'clock  p. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


m.,  no  matter  whether  or  not  he  is  per- 
mitted to  work.  He  knew  of  miners 
who  went  in  at  7 o’clock  in  the  morning 
and  laid  around  idle  until  2 o’clock  in 
the  afternoon  waiting  for  cars,  for  a 
fall  to  be  cleaned  or  for  something  else 
of  this  nature. 

Standing  Black  List. 

He  knew  of  the  existence  of  a stand- 
ing black  list  in  the  Hazelton  region  for 
six  years.  He  was  on  it,  himself,  he 
said,  for  nine  months  because  he  re- 
fused to  continue  in  a place  where  he 
was  unable  to  earn  more  than  $3  a 
week. 

This  concluded  the  morning’s  testi- 
mony. 

At  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  ses- 
sion Mr.  Dickson  suggested  that  an 
arrangement  be  made  by  which  it  shall 
be  known  in  advance  what  company’s 
affairs  are  to  be  taken  up,  so  that  it 
will  not  be  necessary  for  all  the  lawyers 
to  be  present  all  the  time.  Judge  Gray 
said  this  commended  itself  to  the  com- 
mission, and  Mr.  Darrow  said  he  would 
confer  with  the  other  lawyers  regard- 
ing this  after  adjournment. 

Board  Member  Dettrey  was  then  put 
back  on  the  stand  and  proceeded  to  tell 
more  about  the  alleged  discrimination 
against  union  men  by  Coxe  Bros.  & 
Co. 

The  proposition  on  which  the  Coxe 
Bros.  & Co.  strike  was  settled  last 
week  was  offered  in  evidence.  It  was 
made  by  the  miners  and  proposed  that 
the  company  should  take  back  all  men 
except  those  displaced  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  new  machinery  in  the  breaker, 
and  those  who  were  under  indictment 
for  violence  during  the  strike. 

The  witness  told  that  five  men,  in- 
cluding himself,  who  were  active  in  the 
union,  and  who  were  not  in  the  classes 
excepted  by  the  proposition,  were  re- 
fused re-employment. 

Mr.  Darrow  here  presented  a notice 
sent  out  by  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.  to  Tim- 
othy Malony,  secretary  of  the  Oneida 
local  of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  or- 
dering him  to  leave  the  company  house 
he  was  occupying. 

Mr.  Dettrey  testified  there  were  nine 
such  notices  sent  out  to  Oneida  em- 
ployes of  this  company,  and  that  in 
one  case  where  the  tenant  refused  to 
leave  an  eviction  took  place.  John  J. 
McNellis,  an  under  boss  for  the  com- 
pany, refused  to  take  the-  place  of  a 
striking  miner  and  was  'discharged. 
Every  man  who  was  refused  re-employ- 
ment was  either  prominent  in  the  union 
or  the  close  relative  of  a prominent 
union  man. 

Wages  of  a Laborer. 

Returning  to  the  question  of  wages, 
Mr.  Dettrey  told  in  answer  to  Mr.  Dar- 
row’s  question  that  a miner’s  laborer 
received  $1.62  for  work  at  a breast  and 
$1.94  for  work  in  a gangway.  If  a lab- 
orer was  put  at  company  work  he 
would  receive  from  90  cents  to  98  cents. 
The  most  he  ever  would  receive  would 
be  $1.22.  When  a miner’s  place  plays 
out  he  must  remain  idle  till  he  gets  a 


new  one,  or  take  company  work  at 
$1.22  a day.  A laborer  loading  company 
coal,  or  coal  mined  by  the  yard,  gets 
eighteen  cents  a car.  When  a contract 
miner  pays  him,  he  must  pay  him 
twenty-one  Gents  a car. 

Mr.  Dettrey  told  of  once  having 
worked  eight  days  at  the  head  of  a 
shift  rescuing  imprisoned  men  and  af- 
terwards cleaning  up  debris  and  was 
allowed  only  $2.40. 

He  also  told  of  an  incident  of  last 
month,  during  the  strike  when  a num- 
ber of  strikers,  with  the  permission  of 
the  union,  went  in  to  fight  a fire  in  the 
Derringer  colliery.  When  they  came 
to  inquire  what  pay  they  would  get  and 
were  told  it  would  be  $1.22  a day,  they 
all  quit  work  at  the  call  of  the  witness, 
who  is  president  of  the  local. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  what 
pay  drivers  got  at  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.’s 
mines.  The  witness  said  it  was  $1.85. 
Mr.  Watkins  asked  how  he  accounted 
for  the  fact  that  where  drivers  get  this 
pay,  miners  are  willing  to  work  for  the 
small  wages  he  was  testifying  to.  The 
witness  answered  that  it  was  likely  that 
they  were  like  himself,  men  of  families, 
who  could  not  get  up  and  leave  a place 
when  they  wanted  to. 

The  witness  then  went  on  to  tell 
about  the  dangers  of  mining,  the  ex- 
perience necessary  to  make  a good 
practical  miner  and  the  unhealthful- 
ness  of  mine  work. 

Judge  Gray  asked  the  witness  con- 
cerning the  cause  ascribed  for  turning 
out  tenants.  The  witness  said  the  only 
reason  was  they  were  “obnoxious”  to 
the  company  by  reason  of  their  activ- 
, ity  in  the  union. 

Hires  the  Laborers. 

In  answer  to  further  questions  by  the 
commissioners,  the  witness  told  that 
the  company  hires  the  laborers  for  the 
miners  and  stipulates  how  much  they 
will  be  paid. 

The  next  witness  was  Mike  Middlick, 
of  Eckley,  who  was  a miner  at  the 
Eckley  colliery  of  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.  He 
came  here  from  Hungary  eleven  years 
ago  and  has  been  working  in  the  Coxe 
mine  for  six  years.  He  is  married  and 
has  four  children. 

In  response  to  questions  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Carthy, he  told  of  having  been  ordered 
to  leave  a company  house  during  the 
strike  and  of  being  told  to  quit  town, 
that  he  could  not  get  any  work. 

His  average  earnings  as  a contract 
miner,  he  said,  were  $250  a year.  When 
he  worked  at  a breast  where  it  was 
necessary  to  carry  the  coal  out  on  a 
■ “buggy,”  he  was  paid  96  cents  a car. 
When  the  pitch  of  the  vein  would  per- 
mit the  car  to  be  taken  in  to  the  face 
the  allowance  per  car  would  be  87  cents. 
He  was  allowed  on  the  average  four 
cars  a day.  His  dockage  on  the  aver- 
age amounted  to  eight  cars  out  of  forty 
every  two  weeks. 

The  witness  here  produced  a large 
batch  of  his  due  bills.  The  highest  of 
them  showed  $18  for  two  weeks  and  the 
lowest  $1.56  for  two  weeks.  When  asked 


63 

by  Judge  Gray  if  he  worked  every  day 
during  the  period  represented  by  the 
$1.56  due  bill,  the  witness  said  “yes,  sir 
— except  when  I’m  sick  or  something 
the  matter  with  my  family." 

In  telling  of  the  dangerous  and  un- 
healthy conditions  in  the  Eckley  mines, 
the  witness  stated  that  during  six  years 
he  never  saw  the  mine  inspector  in  the 
mines  but  twice,  and  never  once  in  the 
face  of  a chamber. 

At  collieries  adjoining  the  Coxe  col- 
lieries the  miner  makes  $2.37  a day, 
when  put  at  company  work.  At  the 
same  work  in  the  Coxe  colliery  the  pay 
is  $1.22.  The  witness  could  not  explain 
for  Commissioner  Watkins  why  it  was 
the  Coxe  men  were  content  to  work 
for  wages  so  much  smaller  than  those 
paid  in  adjoining  mines.  Commissioner 
Watkins  asked  if  there  were  not  some 
allowances  paid  in  addition  to  the 
wages.  The  witness  answered  in  the 
negative. 

The  witness  told  that  when  he  worked 
in  the  soft  coal  regions  as  a mule  driver 
he  was  paid  $2.15  a day.  When  it  came 
to  cross-examination,  W.  H.  Taylor 
asked  him  why  it  was  he  did  not  stay 
in  the  soft  coal  region.  He  replied  that 
it  was  because  his  wife  and  family 
were  in  this  region  and  his  wife  was  in 
ill-health  and  could  not  stand  the  soft 
coal  smoke. 

Mr.  Taylor  brought  an  admission 
from  the  witness  that  despite  the  small 
wages  at  the  Eckley  and  the  compara- 
tively large  wages  at  the  adjoining  col- 
lieries he  never  but  once  looked  for  a 
job  at  any  of  the  adjoining  collieries. 
The  reason  for  this,  the  witness  said, 
was  that  he  could  not  afford  to  pay 
for  moving  his  family  and  goods  a long 
distance. 

Woman  Called  to  Stand. 

The  first  woman  witness  to  appear 
before  the  commission  was  Mrs.  George 
Bolan,  wife  of  a German  miner  at  the 
Derringer  colliery.  She  was  examined 
by  Mr.  McCarthy. 

Her  husband  has  worked  for  the 
Coxes  for  eighteen  years.  They  have 
seven  children  and  all  of  them  have 
been  sent  out  to  work  to  help  support 
the  family.  The  husband,  she  declares, 
is  a frugal,  thrifty  man,  who  works 
every  day  he  can  get  work  and  never 
wastes  any  money  for  drink.  She,  her- 
self, takes  in  washing  and  sewing.  De- 
spite all  this,  they  can  never  save  a 
penny  and  are  usually  in  debt  for  the 
necessaries  of  life. 

She  did  not  give  very  much  evidence 
of  a satisfactory  nature  regarding  her 
husband’s  earnings. 

“Since  1900  it  is  sometimes  $3  and 
sometimes  $7,  $10,  $15  for  two  weeks,” 
she  said.  Before  1900,  she  averred  it 
was  "one-fourth  or  one-half”  less  than 
this.  One  time  his  pay,  after  deduc- 
tions at  the  store,  was  56  cents,  and 
another  time  81  cents. 

In  answer  to  Mr.  McCarthy’s  ques- 
tion as  to  how  long  it  had  been  since 
she  bought  herself  a new  dress,  she  re- 
plied: “Eight  years.” 


64 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Some  photographs  showing  evictions 
of  miners’  families  from  Coxe  company 
houses  were  submitted  by  Photographer 


Whitman.  The  afternoon  session  closed 
with  Judge  Gray  expressing  the  hope 
that  the  lawyers  would  get  together 


after  adjournment  and  arrange  for  a 
more  orderly  and  expeditious  method 
of  Drocedure. 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Dec.  A. 

[From  Tire  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec  o.] 


Yesterday  nothing  occurred  to  halt 
and  nothing  occurred  to  further  the  im- 
pression gained  by  many  at  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Mine  Strike  commission 
that  the  parties  to  the  controversy  are 
expecting  another  interruption  for  the 
active  renewal  of  the  negotiations  for 
amicable  settlement. 

The  statistical  evidence  which  was  to 
be  prepared  during  the  ten  days’  re- 
cess is  still  wanting  and  nothing  is 
heard  of  it.  The  more  orderly  and  ex- 
peditious method  of  procedure  which 
was  to  be  agreed  upon  by  the  attorneys 
is  not  apparent.  Practically  all  the  ev- 
idence submitted  yesterday  concerned 
companies  not  represented  before  the 
commission,  and  scarcely  a word  came 
from  any  attorney  representing  one  of 
the  big  companies. 

It  was  given  out  the  night  before  that 
the  miners  would  proceed  during  the 
succeeding  three  or  four  days  with  the 
examination  of  witnesses  from  the  Haz- 
leton district.  The  witnesses  from  the 
collieries  of  Coxe  Bros.  & Co. — an  unrep- 
resented company— were  exhausted  be- 
fore adjourning  time,  and  instead  of 
taking  up  the  other  and  represented 
companies  from  that  district  the  miners 
stepped  over  the  mountain  to  Nanti- 
coke,  in  the  Wilkes-Barre  district,  and 
took  up  the  consideration  of  affairs  at 
the  collieries  of  another  unrepresented 
company.  There  were  not  enough  of 
these  to  fill  in  the  remainder  of  the  day, 
and  another  skip  was  taken  up  the  val- 
ley to  Scranton,  and  a couple  of  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  wit- 
nesses put  on  to  tell  harmless  stories 
about  being  refused  employment.  The 
only  one  to  controvert  any  considerable 
amount  of  testimony  was  Attorney  John 
T.  Lenahan,  representing  the  non-union 
men.  Attorney  H.  C.  Reynolds,  of  the 
Independents,  and  several  of  the  inde- 
pendent operators  themselves,  helped 
some  in  filling  in  the  day  by  asking  a 
few  questions  now  and  then  on  rather 
general  matters.  As  far  as  furthering 
the  work  of  the  commission  is  con- 
cerned the  day  was  not  what  might  be 
properly  termed  a big  success. 

Not  Yet  Instructed. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  session, 
Attorney  Wolverton  stated  to  the  com- 
mission that  he  had  not  heard  from 
Coxe  Bros.  & Co.,  as  to  whether  he 
should  or  should  not  cross-examine  the 
witnesses  who  were  being  put  on  from 
this  company’s  mines.  He  hoped,  how- 
ever, by  2 o’clock  to  be  able  to  say  def- 
initely whether  or  not  he  would  con- 
duct such  cross-examinations.  At  2 
o’clock  Mr.  Wolverton  asked  to  be  fur- 
ther indulged  until  morning  as  he  had 
not  “been  able  to  get  in  communication 


with  the  company.”  It  was  brought  out 
later  on  the  witness  stand  that  Mr. 
Cudlick,  of  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.,  was  in 
the  city  during  the  day.  It  appears, 
however,  he  did  not  come  clothed  with 
authority  to  advise  the  counsel  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  company  would  be- 
come a party  to  the  hearings. 

General  interest  in  the  proceedings 
seems  to  be  materially  on  the  wane. 
Yesterday  morning  for  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  the  sessions  there  were 
vacant  seats,  both  in  and  out  of  the  bar 
enclosure.  Usually,  it  has  been  that 
four  policemen  and  as  many  more  tip- 
staves were  necessary  to  keep  the 
crowds  from  overflowing  the  room. 

The  witnesses  from  the  Coxe  mines 
were  asked  a set  series  of  questions 
bearing  on  wages,  hours,  dockage,  the 
danger  and  unhealthfulness  of  mine 
work,  lack  of  proper  inspection,  injus- 
tices, discriminations,  blacklisting  and 
so  on.  The  stories  of  these  witnesses 
being  allowed  to  stand  with  scarcely 
any  qualification  that  would  come  from 
cross-examination,  put  the  company  in 
a very  poor  light.  The  commissioners, 
and  Mr.  Watkins  more  particularly, 
brought  out  some  important  qualifica- 
tions by  questions  regarding  statements 
that  seemed  to  them  vague,  unreason- 
able and  erroneous.  Scores  of  half 
truths  would  have  gone  on  the  record 
unchallenged  had  it  not  been  for  the 
commissioners’  questions. 

For  instance,  a fireman  from  one  of 
the  Coxe  collieries  told  that  he  had  to 
work  twenty-four  hours  every  second 
Sunday.  Questioning  on  the  part  of  the 
commissioners  developed  the  fact  that 
on  the  intervening  Sunday  he  had 
twenty-four  hours  off,  and  that  three 
men  work  with  him,  so  that  it  was  fair 
to  be  inferred  he  caught  a little  nap,  at 
least,  on  the  long  Sunday. 

An  Interesting  Story. 

Rev.  J.  V.  Hussie,  rector  of  St. 
Gabriel’s  church  at  Hazleton,  was  one 
of  the  afternoon  witnesses  and  told  an 
interesting  story  of  conditions  in  the 
Hazleton  region.  He  was  cross-exam- 
ined by  Attorney  John  T.  Lenahan  on 
the  treatment  accorded  non-union  men 
and  strike  violence  generally.  The  wit- 
ness contended  that  there  was  very 
little  disorder  in  Hazleton  during  the 
strike,  and  what  little  occurred  was 
grossly  exaggerated  in  the  newspapers. 

Attorneys  Darrow,  McCarthy  and 
James  L.  Lenahan  did  the  examining 
for  the  miners’  side.  President  Mitch- 
ell, sitting  convenient  to  the  lawyers, 
coached  them  constantly  and  twice, 
with  permission  of  the  commission, 
made  explanations  of  matters  under 
discussion,  upon  which  he  was  more 


competent  to  speak  than  either  the 
witnesses  or  the  attorneys. 

An  amusing  incident  took  place  to- 
wards the  close  of  the  afternoon  ses- 
sion. Andrew  Matti,  a Slav,  who  is  one 
of  the  board  members  in  the  Hazleton 
district,  was  on  the  stand  in  the  morn- 
ing and  told  of  having  been  engaged  by 
a “boss”  of  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.  to  import 
men  from  the  old  country.  It  was 
noticed  by  the  miners’  attorneys  that 
the  commission  was  apparently  very 
much  interested  in  this  matter,  and 
when  they  got  to  talking  it  over  during 
the  noon  recess  came  to  the  conclusion 
to  give  the  commission  some  more  of  it. 

Accordingly,  Matti  was  recalled  and 
led  by  questions  from  Mr.  Darrow,  told 
all  the  details  of  the  importations,  in- 
cluding how  he  was  paid  money  by  the 
mine  boss  to  perform  this  work.  The 
commissioners  were  listening  eagerly 
to  the  recital  and  asking  quite  a few 
questions.  Suddenly  Judge  Gray  said: 
"By  the  way,  when  did  this  happen?” 
The  whole  assemblage,  commissioners, 
miners’  representatives  and  all  fairly 
roared  with  laughter  when  the  witness 
answered,  “Seventeen  years  ago.” 

First  Witness. 

Matti  was  the  first  witness  of  the 
day.  He  was  called  to  the  stand  by 
Mr.  Darrow  immediately  upon  the  open- 
ing of  the  morning  session.  He  was  a 
former  miner  at  the  Prospect  'jlliery 
of  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.,  and  holds  the  po- 
sition of  district  vice  president  of  the 
union.  He  told  of  being  discriminated 
against  because  of  being  prominent  in 
the  union  and  how  he  lost  a good  job 
for  the  same  reason.  I *.  was  earning 
$10  a week,  he  said,  ai  d this  was  as 
high  as  any  other  man  at  the  mine.  He 
never  had  more  than  $20  together  at  one 
time  that  he  could  call  his  own,  al- 
though he  worked  every  day  he.  was 
given  opportunity  to  work. 

When  asked  if  he  knew  anything 
about  operators  bringing  his  country- 
men, Slavonians,  here  to  work  in  the 
mines,  he  said  he,  himself,  had  brought 
many  of  them  over  at  the  behest  of  the 
mine  boss. 

Like  the  witness  of  the  day  before, 
Matti  told  that  he  never  saw  the  mine 
inspector  in  his  “breast”  but  once  and 
then  he  was  being  escorted  by  the  mine 
boss. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  what 
the  purpose  was  of  the  testimony  re- 
garding the  mine  inspector.  Mr.  Har- 
row called  on  Mr.  Mitchell  to  explain. 

Mr.  Mitchell  stated  that  they-  wanted 
to  show  that  the  mine  inspector  never 
goes  on  his  rounds  unless  accompanied 
by  a mine  boss  and  because  of  the  boss 
being  along  the  attention  of  the  inspec- 


tor,  instead  of  being-  directed  to,  is  di- 
verted from  bad  conditions,  and  be- 
sides, when  the  boss  is  standing  by  the 
miners  do  not  dare  to  make  complaints. 

Judge  Gray  wanted  to  know  if  it  was 
not  necessary  to  have  some  one  go 
about  with  the  inspector  as  a guide. 

Attorney  McCarthy  explained  that  a 
good  experienced  miner,  such  as  an  in- 
spector ought  to  be,  does  not  need  a 
guide.  He  can  follow  the  map  or  even 
find  his  way  about  by  following  the  air 
current. 

General  Wilson,  addressing  Mr.  Mc- 
Carthy, asked  if  a mine  boss  who  him- 
self had  been  a miner,  would  be  so  lack- 
ing in  love  for  his  fellow  man  that  he 
would  intentionally  expose  him  to  dan- 
ger by  diverting  the  attention  of  the 
inspector  from  dangerous  conditions. 

Mr.  McCarthy  answered  in  the  affirm- 
ative and  then  explained  that  the  mine 
boss  is  responsible  for  bad  conditions 
and  can  be  counted  upon  to  hide  his 
own  derelictions. 

Reynolds  Protests. 

Attorney  Reynolds,  of  counsel  for  the 
independent  operators,  protested  against 
further  inquiry  concerning  the  inspect- 
ors. It  is  unreasonable,  he  argued,  that 
a company  is  not  just  as  desirous  of  an 
inspector  doing  his  duty  as  the  em- 
ployes possibly  could  be,  because  in  pro- 
tecting the  miners  he  is  also  protect- 
ing the  company’s  property.  At  all 
events,  Mr.  Reynolds  said,  it  was  not  fair 
to  allow  the  reputations  of  the  inspect- 
ors to  be  attacked  when  they  are  not 
here  to  defend  themselves. 

Judge  Gray  said  that  anything  throw- 
ing light  on  the  conditions  into  which 
the  commission  is  inquiring,  is  relevant 
testimony.  He  would  be  pleased,  he 
said,  to  have  the  inspectors  come  before 
the  commission  and  tell  their  story. 

Mr.  Mitchell  said  it  was  not  the  pur- 
pose of  the  miners  to  assail  the  in- 
spectors or  the  foremen.  They  are  vic- 
tims of  environments.  The  purpose  is 
to  show  that  the  miners  do  not  dare  to 
make  complaints  to  the  inspectors. 

Attorney  Reynolds  pointed  out  the 
fact  that  in  every  district  the  mine  in- 
spector maintains  an  office  where  min- 
ers can  wait  on  him. 

Attorney  Torrey  called  attention  to 
the  Garner  act  providing  for  the 
election  of  mine  inspectors  by  the  peo- 
ple, and  told  that  it  was  passed  at  the 
instance  of  the  miners.  Judge  Gray  ex- 
pressed surprise  to  learn  that  the  min- 
ers favored  a law  permitting  all  the 
people  to  elect  inspectors. 

After  some  explanations  were  made 
as  to  the  old  and  new  ways  of  electing 
inspectors,  the  cross-examination  of 
Matti  was  proceeded  with.  About  the 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

only  further  thing  of  interest  adduced 
from  him  was  that  one  of  his  griev- 
ances consisted  of  the  company  loan- 
ing him  money  and  keeping  him  in 
debt.  “You  didn’t  have  to  take  it,  did 
you?”  asked  Judge  Gray.  The  witness 
admitted  that  he  didn’t. 

John  T.  Strannix,  of  Drifton,  an  old 
employe  of  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.,  was  the 
next  witness.  He  told  that  his  wages 
ranged  from  $80  for  two  weeks  to  $15 
less  than  nothing.  This  last  condition, 
it  was  explained,  resulted  from  sub- 
tractions for  powder,  etc.,  while  he  was 
cutting  coal  which  could  not  be  loaded 
within  the  same  two  weeks  that  it  was 
cut. 

Rather  a Homebody. 

He  worked  twenty-two  years  for  the 
Coxes,  and  never  in  that  time  was  out 
of  Luzerne  county  except  to  take  a run 
down  to  Allentown  during  the  strike. 
He  was  never  able  to  save  any  money. 

He  told  that  it  was  his  invariable  ex- 
perience that  when  he  went  to  a boss 
to  make  a complaint  he  was  told  that 
if  he  didn’t  like  it  he  could  get  out. 

Practically  similar  testimony  was 
given  by  John  Parreri,  an  Italian,  who 
came  from  the  Alps,  and  who  has  been 
working  for  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.  for 
twelve  years.  He  is  vice-president  of 
the  local  and  is  one  of  the  men  turned 
out  of  the  company  houses  and  refused 
re-employment  at  the  end  of  the  strike 
because  of  his  connection  with  the 
union. 

He  was  told  it  was  because  he 
“chased  men  from  work”  that  he  would 
not  be  re-employed. 

Judge  Gray  asked  him  if  it  was  true 
he  had  chased  men  away  from  work. 
The  witness  said  he  had  only  “advised” 
them  to  stay  home. 

Just  before  the  strike,  the  witness 
said,  he  had  a good  place  and  could 
earn  $1.90  a day  If  he  worked  hard.  He 
started  saving  a little  something  “for 
a rainy  day,”  in  1895,  and  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  last  strike  had  amassed  $60. 

In  telling  of  the  extent  to  which 
dockage  is  carried,  he  stated  that  once 
he  sent  out  fourteen  cars  and  they 
were  condemned.  He  had  to  “pick” 
them  over  and  was  docked  25  per  cent, 
at  that.  President  Crawford,  of  the 
People’s  Coal  company,  asked  the  wit- 
ness how  many  cars  he  filled  from  the 
fourteen  when  they  were  “picked”  over. 
The  witness  said  twelve.  “Then  you 
sent  out  two  cars  of  dirt?”  said  Mr. 
Crawford.  The  witness  did  not  reply. 

Timothy  Maloney,  secretary  of  the 
Oneida  local,  was  the  next  witness.  He 
is  also  one  of  the  men  turned  out  of  a 
company  house  and  refused  re-employ- 
ment. He  was  working  as  a footman 
at  the  Oneida  for  ten  years  prior  to  the 
strike  and  earned  $9  a week.  His  father 
had  to  quit  work  in  the  mines  three 
years  ago  on  account  of  asthma. 

The  witness  identified  a notice  posted 
by  Coxe  Bros.  •&  Co.,  in  the  latter  part 
of  last  September,  in  which  warning 


65 

was  given  that  discharge  would  be  the 
penalty  on  any  employe  who  "by  in- 
timidation or  moral  persuasion”  at- 
tempted to  induce  any  other  employe  to 
join  or  leave  any  society  or  union,  or 
refused  to  work  with  any  fellow-laborer 
because  of  hl^  not  being  a member  of 
any  society  or  union.  The  notice  was 
offered  in  evidence. 

Lenahan  Takes  a Hand. 

The  witness  was  then  cross-examined 
by  John  T.  Lenahan,  representing  the 
non-union  men.  Mr.  Lenahan  brought 
out  the  fact  that  employes  of  the  Coxe 
Bros.  & Co.  railroad  had  been  attacked 
by  mobs  during  the  strike,  and  then 
asked  the  witness  if  he  did  not  lead 
these  mobs  on  two  different  occasions. 
The  witness  denied  the  allegation  con- 
tained in  Mr.  Lenahan’s  question,  and 
further  denied  having  participated  in 
any  strike  violence. 

Attorney  H.  C.  Reynolds  brought 
from  the  witness  an  admission  that  he 
left  his  job  two  days  before  the  strike 
was  declared,  and  that  when  he  was 
dispossessed  of  the  company  house  he 
was  owing  four  months’  rent.  Mr.  Dar- 
row  brought  out  that  the  notice  order- 
ing- him  to  quit  the  company  house  con- 
tained no  demand  for  or  mention  of 
rent,  and  that  it  was  not  infrequent 
for  him  to  be  in  arrears. 

Hugh  Boyle,  a miner’s  laborer,  of 
Nuremberg,  employed  by  Coxe  Bros.  & 
Co.,  corroborated  the  preceding  wit- 
nesses on  matters  pertaining  to  general 
conditions  and  told,  besides,  that  as  a 
laborer  for  a miner  he  was  paid  $1.94. 
while  as  a laborer  for  the  company  he 
would  be  paid  only  $1.22. 

The  testimony  of  the  morning  session 
closed  with  this  witness. 

The  first  witness  of  the  afternoon  was 
W.  H.  Dettrey,  board  member  of  the 
Hazelton  district,-  who  was  on  the  stand 
the  day  before.  He  was  recalled  to  be 
examined  more  particularly  regarding 
the  strike  at  the  Coxe  Bros.  & Co.  col- 
lieries. 

When  the  strike  at  these  collieries 
ended  last  week  it  was  agreed  that  the 
company  should  not  re-employ  men 
who  had  been  displaced  by  the  intro- 
duction of  machinery  or  those  under 
indictment  or  arrest  for  crime.  The  list 
of  men  the  company  put  in  these  two 
excepted  classes  numbered  439.  The 

witness  testified  that  he  carefully  ex- 
amined the  list  and  found  only 
eighteen  who  were  ever  under  arrest 
for  crime.  It  was  not  until  the  com- 
pany cut  the  list  down  to  169  that  the 
strike  was  finally  ended. 

The  witness  was  then  cross-examined 
by  John  T.  Lenahan.  Mr.  Lenahan 
brought  out  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
Central  Labor  union  in  Hazelton,  with 
which  the  miners  are  allied;  that  its 
official  organ  is  the  Trades  Unionist; 
that  the  editors  of  the  paper  have  been 
held  under  $10,000  bail  each  for  libelling 
Superintendent  Smith  of  Coxe  Bros.  & 
Co.,  and  that  articles  from  Freeland  and 
Drifting  abusing  Superintendent  Smith 
appeared  in  this  paper. 


66 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


He  Did  Hot  Know. 

The  witness  averred  that  he  did  not 
know  that  there  were  many  strikers 
engaged  in  violence  who  were  not  ar- 
rested, or  that  twenty-five  of  the  strik- 
ers from  the  Coxe  mines  were  arrested 
in  Wilkes-Barre. 

Jackson  Anspach,  of  Rock  Glen,  a 
fireman  at  one  of  the  Coxe  breakers, 
told  that  he  worked  twelve  hours  a day 
and  twenty-four  hours  at  a stretch 
every  other  Sunday,  when  changing 
shifts.  This  condition  prevails  all 
through  that  region.  Sometimes  he  can 
get  off  for  a few  hours  to  go  to  church. 
The  pay  of  a fireman  is  $1.57  a day.  A 
question  from  Commissioner  Parker 
adduced  the  fact  “that  the  fireman  has 
every  other  Sunday  off.”  The*  witness 
admitted  he  favored  an  eight-hour  day 
in  response  to  Mr.  Dickson’s  direct 
question. 

For  the  last  six  years  the  witness  has 
been  trying  to  pay  $900  on  a home  he 
purchased.  He  has  succeeded  in  paying 
off  about  $700  of  the  debt. 

Commissioner  Watkins  put  questions 
to  the  witness  which  brought  out  the 
fact  that  two  other  men  work  with  him. 
The  witness  denied,  however,  that 
either  of  these  men  could  “spell  him 
off.” 

Rev.  J.  V.  Hussie,  rector  of  St.  Gab- 
riel’s Roman  Catholic  church,  and  one 
of  the  deans  of  the  Scranton  diocese, 
was  then  called  to  the  stand.;  He  was 
examined  by  Mr.  Darrow.  He  told  that 
he  has  spent  his  whole  life  with  the 
exception  of  a few  years  in  the  coal  re- 
gions. His  parish  is  composed  of  700 
families  and  ninety  per  cent,  of  the 
men  are  mine  workers.  He  is  frequent- 
ly at  the  homes  of  miners  and  knows 
their  conditions  and  mode  of  living. 

The  Fourth  legislative  district,  of 
which  Hazelton  is  a part,  contains  3.000 
total  abstainers,  one  half  of  them  adult 
men.  Every  member  of  his  congrega- 
tion took  the  total  abstinence  pledge  the 
first  Sunday  of  the  strike.  Drinking 
was  at  his  minimum  among  his  people 
during  the  strike,  and  he  only  saw  five 
drunken  men  in  Hazelton  during  the 
five  months  the  strike  was  on. 

Conditions  among  the  miners  of  the 
Hazelton  region,  he  said,  were  truly  de- 
plorable. They  are  barely  able  to  exist. 
He  had  been  in  other  places  where  he 
saw  conditions,  which,  he  thought, 
were  deplorable,  but  no  place  he  had 
ever  been  could  compare  with  Hazelton 
In  this  respect. 

Can’t  Be  Called  Homes. 

The  homes  can  not  properly  be  called 
homes.  They  are  habitations.  The 
miners,  he  said,  are  frugal,  conserva- 
tive men,  reasonable  in  their  demands 
and  that  they  are  a God-fearing  peo- 
ple is  attested  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
city  of  Hazelton  there  are  eight  Ro- 
man Catholic  churches,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  churches  of  other  faiths.  All  of 
them  are  crowded  every  Sunday. 

He  has  found  that  in  sickness  the 
miner  is  scarcely  able  to  pay  for  at- 
tendance and  medicine  and  a death 


means  a long-standing  debt.  One  fru- 
gal German  miner  told  the  witness  that 
he  was  six  years  paying  off  a debt  of 
$200  contracted  for  a funeral. 

The  witness  told,  incidentally,  that  G. 
B.  Markle  & Co.  maintain  a burial  fund 
for  their  employes.  He  commended  the 
company  for  this  very  humane  action. 

Because  of  the  poor  wages  received 
by  the  head  of  the  household  it  is  im- 
possible to  keep  the  families  together. 
Girls  leave  home  as  soon  as  they  are 
able  to  work,  some  of  them  going  to 
other  places  to  live  as  servants,  and 
many  of  them  going  into  the  silk  mills 
and  other  like  industries.  The  boys  go 
into  the  breaker  as  soon  as  they  are  able 
to  toddle  out  of  the  house.  The  average 
age  at  which  miners’  children  leave 
school,  the  witness  said,  is  a little  over 
eleven  years. 

During  the  last  strike  there  was  great 
privation  among  the  miners,  but  he 
knew  of  not  a single  instance  where  a 
striker  wanted  to  return  to  work  until 
the  union  decreed  he  should  return.  Out 
of  fifty  or  sixty  men  of  whom  he  made 
inquiries,  he  found  only  three  who  had 
money  saved.  One  made  it  in  Scot- 
land, another  made  it  in  Australia,  and 
the  third  inherited  it. 

He  examined  the  list  of  taxables  in 
the  city  of  Hazleton  and  found  that 
out  of  1,723  persons  on  the  list  there 
were  only  eighty  miners  assessed  as 
owners  of  homes.  Seventy  per  cent,  of 
the  population  of  Hazleton,  he  said,  is 
made  up  of  miners  and  their  depend- 
ents. 

There  was  no  considerable  feeling  or 
excitement  in  Hazleton  during  the 
strike,  the  witness  asserted.  It  was,  on 
the  contrary,  remarkably  quiet.  He  had 
protested  as  a citizen,  in  a letter  to  the 
public,  against  the  stories  sent  out  re- 
garding disorder  in  his  city.  The  news- 
paper reports  were  grossly  exagger- 
ated. One  morning  he  read  an  account 
of  a man  being  attacked  by  strikers  on 
the  streets  of  Hazleton.  Alongside  of  it 
was  a story  to  the  effect  that  the  chief 
of  police  declared  there  were  fewer  ar- 
rests and  less  drunkenness  in  Hazleton 
during  that  month  than  in  any  month 
of  the  preceding  year. 

Considered  Conservative. 

He  did  not  know  any  of  the  mine 
workers’  officials  personally  except  Dis- 
trict President  Duffy  and  he  considered 
him  a very  conservative  man. 

The  sending  of  the  military  to  Hazle- 
ton, the  witness  declared,  was  wholly 
uncalled  for.  Their  arrival  was  a big 
surprise  to  the  people  of  the  town. 
There  had  been  no  call  for  them  by  the 
citizens  and  absolutely  no  occasion  for 
their  coming. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Lenahan 
related  a series  of  strike  disorders, 
which  occurred  in  and  about  Hazleton, 
including  the  dynamiting  of  the  home 
of  a non-union  man;  an  attack  on  a 
car  conveying  non-union  men  through 
Hazleton,  and  the  mobbing  of  the  crew 
of  a railroad  train  on  the  Coxe  Bros.  & 


Co.  road  at  Drifton,  and  asked  the  wit- 
ness if  he  had  heard  of  these  things. 

The  witness  had  heard  of  some  of 
them  through  the  newspapers.  Some  of 
the  reports  he  knew  were  exaggerated. 
Others  he  knew  something  about,  but 
was  ready  to  believe  the  newspaper 
reports  of  them  were  exaggerated. 

The  witness  admitted  he  knew  that 
Sheriff  Jacobs,  of  Luzerne  county,  re- 
sides in  Hazleton  and  that  it  was  he 
who  called  out  the  troops,  but  denied 
all  knowledge  of  the  alleged  fact  thai 
it  was  after  a night  of  tumult  in  and 
around  Hazleton,  with  mobs  menacing 
miners  and  workmen  at  Hazle  and 
Foster,  that  the  sheriff  made  the  requi- 
sition on  the  governor. 

Commissioner  Clark  asked  if  condi- 
tions changed  after  the  troops  arrived. 
Father  Hussie  answered  that  the  same 
peace  and  quiet  continued,  and  the 
people  and  soldiers  were  the  best  of 

friends. 

In  conclusion,  Father  Hussie  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  lack  of  in- 
telligence and  want  of  charity  on  the 
part  of  the  mine  bosses,  who  have  the 
immediate  direction  of  the  work  of  the 
men,  are  responsible  mainly  for  the  ills 
of  which  the  miners  complain. 

John  Price,  a check  docking  boss  at 
No.  5 breaker  of  the  Susquehanna  Coal 
company,  Nanticoke,  testified  that  prior 
to  the  time  the  miners  put  on  a check 
weighman  the  dockage  was  from  eight 
to  ten  per  cent.  Just  before  the  last 
strike  the  dockage  was  reduced  to  one 
and  one-half  per  cent. 

Check  Docking  Boss. 

The  witness  further  told  that  at  the 
close  of  the  last  strike  the  company  dis- 
charged the  check  docking  boss  at  No.  7 
breaker  of  the  Susquehanna  company. 
When  a committee  asked  the  superin- 
tendent why  the  check  docking  boss 
was  dispensed  with,  he  answered  that 
he  did  not  propose  to  put  him  on  until 
a decision  had  been  rendered  by  the 
commission. 

W.  H.  Wright,  of  West  Scranton,  who 
was  a clerk  at  the  Hyde  Park  colliery 
of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  company,  told  of  his  being 
discharged  because  he  refused  to  be 
sworn  in  as  a coal  and  iron  policeman. 

Major  Warren  got  him  to  admit  on 
cross-examination  that  he  quit  his  job 
as  clerk  when  asked  to  be  sworn  in  as 
an  officer  to  help  protect  the  com- 
pany's property,  and  that  when  the 
strike  was  over  and  he  applied  for  re- 
instatement he  found  another  man  had 
taken  his  place. 

William  Martin,  who  for  fifteen  years 
was  an  engineer  at  the  Sloan  colliery 
of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  company,  told  that  he  went  on 
strike  June  1,  and  when  the  strike  was 
over  the  company  refused  to  reinstate 
him. 

Adjourning  time  came  as  Major  War- 
ren was  about  to  cross-examine  him. 

Settlement  talk  was  running  rather 
high  last  night.  Attorney  MacVeagh 
emphatically  declared  to  a number  of 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


67 


newspapermen  that  the  negotiations  are 
still  on  and  that  there  is  something  do- 
ing. Mr.  Mitchell,  Mr.  MacVeagh,  Mr. 


Willcox,  Mr.  Darrow,  Mr.  Murphy  and 
a number  of  other  representatives  of 
the  two  principal  parties  went  up  stairs 


in  the  elevator  about  the  same  time  last 
night,  but  none  of  them  would  admit 
they  had  a meeting. 


Proceedings  of  Friday,  Dec.  5. 

[ From  Tile  Scranton  Tribune,  Ibeo.  6.] 


A settlement  of  the  anthracite  coal 
working  issues  is  now  not  to  be  long 
delayed,  for  there  is  much  confidence 
that  present  plans  to  bring  it  about  will 
be  successful.  The  independent  opera- 
tors and  the  big  companies  are  about 
to  come  to  terms,  the  mine  workers 
and  the  big  companies  are  already  act- 
ing in  harmony,  and  the  mine  workers 
are  doing  as  much  as  the  big  compan- 
ies in  the  endeavor  to  get  the  indepen- 
dents in  line. 

The  latter  are  not,  as  it  has  frequent- 
ly been  stated,  concerned  about  the  in- 
creased cost  to  be  caused  by  giving  the 
mine  workers  an  advance  in  wages  and 
reduction  in  hours.  They  realize  that 
as  the  big  companies,  controlling  sev- 
en-tenths of  the  output,  will  have  to 
pay  the  same  increase  they  will  do  as 
in  the  past,  raise  the  selling  price  of 
coal.  The  independents  get  sixty-five 
per  cent  of  the  selling  price,  so  this 
raise  would  protect  them  against  the 
increase  to  the  miners. 

What  the  independents  want  is  this: 
Opportunity  to  show  to  the  American 
public  that  they  are  right  in  the  po- 
sition they  took  on  May  1 and  have 
maintained  since. 

This  they  will  be  able  to  do  in  the 
plan  of  settlement  which  is  now  pro- 
posed and  which  it  is  believed  is  rap- 
idly reaching  a culmination. 

The  plan  is  briefly  this: 

Outline  of  Plan 

First — That  each  side  shall  make  a 
case  stated  and  agree  upon  a verdict. 

Second — That  the  mine  workers  shall 
agree  that  the  figures  of  the  operators 
relative  to  wages,  hours  of  work  and 
weights  of  coal  are  substantially  cor- 
rect. 

Third — That  these  shall  be  embodied 
in  the  findings  and  the  reports  of  the 
commission. 

The  mine  workers  are  eager  for  a 
settlement  because  they  realize  they 
will  have  difficulty  in  presenting  their 
case,  all  the  evidence  they  can  well  give 
being  such  as  has  been  given  during  the 
last  three  days,  individual  statements, 
which  do  not  represent  in  tangible 
shape  the  conditions  ot  work  for  all  the 
employes  of  each  company  and  from 
which  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  draw 
a fair  average. 

The  operators  are  willing  to  settle 
for  the  following  reasons:  Because 

cordial  relations  between  a company 
and  its  employes  is  vitally  essential  to 
successful  mining;  the  efficiency  and 
productive  capacity  of  the  mine  work- 
ers being  reduced  12  per  cent  since  the 
advent  of  the  union  and  the  bitterness 
caused  thereby. 


Because  a rehearsal  of  the  bitterness 
engendered  by  the  strike  before  the 
commission  would  be  a re-enactment  of 
the  strike  conditions  and  aid  further  in 
preventing  the  necessary  good  feeling. 

Because  it  will  save  immense  expense 
and  avoid  the  almost  impossible  task 
the  commission  would  have  in  making 
a satisfactory  award. 

Public  Sentiment. 

Because  they  realize  the  fact  it  was 
pubic  sentiment  that  settled  the  strike 
of  1900;  and  strengthened  the  miners  in 
their  purpose  to  project  the  strike  of 
1902;  because  public  sentiment  forced 
President  Roosevelt  to  take  the  steps 
he  did  for  a settlement,  and  that  there- 
fore it  is  incumbent  upon  them,  for 
the  sake  of  the  future,  to  get  their  case 
before  the  public  so  it  shall  realize  the 
miners  are  not  poor,  down-trodden 
workers,  and  yet  get  it  before  the  pub- 
ic without  increasing  the  present  con- 
dition of  bitterness. 

These  are  the  reasons  of  each  side 
and  as  there  is  a very  thorough  under- 
standing, there  is  much  hope  among 
those  concerned  that  arrangements 
may  quickly  be  made  to  proceed 
with  the  adjustment  on  these  lines 

This  afternoon  Attorney  Wayne  Mc- 
Veagh,  who  has  been  the  prime  mover 
in  the  settlement  plan  and  Commission- 
er Parker  went  to  New  York  city  and 
will  go  from  there  to  Washington. 
What  they  are  to  do  there  is  not  stated 
here,  but  it  is  understood  that  they  are 
to  further  the  peace  proposition.  Mr. 
MacVeagh  said  of  the  outlook  before 
he  departed: 

“A  majority  of  the  operators  think  it 
better  to  adjourn  all  efforts  to  reach 
by  amicable  conferences  a basis  for 
the  award  of  the  commission  until  both 
sides  have  presented  all  the  testimony 
they  wish  to  offer.  Whether  the  ef- 
forts to  reach  such  a basis  will  be  then 
resumed  can  only  be  decided  after  the 
testimony  is  closed. 

“I  think  in  view  of  the  extraordinary 
conditions  existing  in  the  anthracite 
region,  that  this  is  a mistaken  attitude 
for  the  operators  to  assume,  as  I fear 
each  day’s  testimony  will  tend  to  in- 
crease the  bitterness  or  feeling,  but  it 
is  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  of 
the  operators  to  act  on  their  own  judg- 
ment of  the  situation,  and  I sincerely 
hope  the  result  will  fully  justify  the 
conclusion  reached.” 

This  is  taken  by  some  of  the  inde- 
pendent operators  as  an  effort  to  mis- 
lead those  who  are  stubborn  and  pre- 
vent them  thinking  their  compliance 
is  greatly  desired. 


Sparring  for  Time. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  at  the  present 
hearings  the  mine  workers  are  merely 
sparring  for  time. 

One  of  the  independent  operators, 
who  was  present  at  the  meeting  in  New 
York  and  one  of  those  chiefly  concerned 
in  a settlement,  said  yesterday  after- 
noon: “Of  course  it  is  sparring  for  time 
in  the  expectation  that  the  proposed  set- 
tlement will  soon  be  reached.  It  looks 
hopeful  now.  All  we  desire,  except  a 
few  of  us,  is  that  the  public  shall 
understand  we  believe  we  were,  and  we 
are  now,  right  in  maintaining  that  our 
position  is  the  right  one,  but  we  will 
agree  to  a conciliatory  adjustment. 
Our  position  was  that  if  the  big  com- 
panies settled  now  by  conciliatory 
measures  it  will  be  a confession  that  in 
May  last  they  were  wrong  and  that 
they  are  thus  morally,  if  not  legally, 
responsible  for  all  the  trouble  during 
the  strike.  We  told  them  we  were  will- 
ing to  make  an  amicable  settlement, 
but  we  would  not  do  it  without  putting 
our  case  before  the  public,  so  the  pub- 
lic could  see  we  were  in  the  right. 

“It  was  then  decided  not  to  abandon 
the  negotiations,  but  to  say  they  had 
been  suspended  ‘for  the  present.’  The 
wisdom  of  this  is  now  apparent,  for 
negotiations  are  now  on  again.” 

An  attorney  for  one  of  the  parties  in 
interest,  discussing  the  settlement  ne- 
gotiations, said: 

“The  plan  is  for  the  independents  to 
draw  up  a statement  and  the  big  com- 
panies to  make  one.  These  are  to  be 
submitted  to  the  mine  workers,  and 
they  will  specify  on  what  points  they 
agree  and  disagree.  We  will  then  get 
together  and  reach  a verdict,  which  will 
be  submitted  to  the  commission.  The 
commission  will  take  the  case  as  stated 
and  make  their  finding,  and  report  on 
how  such  controversies  in  the  future 
may  be  avoided.” 

It  is  understood  that  only  a few  of 
the  more  stubborn  of  the  independents 
now  oppose  this  measure,  and  they  are 
being  gradually  won  over. 

Some  of  the  mine  workers  are  doing 
what  they  can  with  these  men,  as  well 
as  the  representatives  of  the  big  oper- 
tors. 

Absorption  May  Be  One  of  the  Re- 
sults. 

The-  absorption  of  all  the  independ- 
ent anthracite  coal  holdings  by  the  big 
coal  carrying  roads  may  result  from 
the  strike  and  the  present  hearings  be- 
fore the  commission.  This  would  re- 
move from  the  field  of  operations  a 
thorn  which  has  been  in  the  side  of  the 
big  corporations  for  some  time. 

It  can  now  be  stated  that  recent 


68 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


events  have  resulted  in  the  serious  con- 
sideration by  the  big  companies  of  a 
wholesale  purchase  of  the  independents. 
It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  this  will  take 
place  at  once  or  before  the  commission 
makes  its  finding,  but  it  is  not  improb- 
able within  six  months  or  a year  that 
many  of  the  independents  will  have 
sold  out.  It  is  estimated  that  the  sixty- 
seven  independent  companies  are  valued 
at  about  $145,000,000.  They  produce 
three-tenths  of  the  total  output  of  coal 
and  get  for  it  about  sixty-five  per  cent, 
of  the  selling  price,  the  coal  carrying 
roads  taking  the  thirty-five  per  cent, 
for  haulage  and  profit.  As  they  charge 
for  haulage  on  a basis  of  $1.60  a ton, 
while  the  regular  rate  for  rough  freight 
of  a similar  nature  is  less  than  half 
that  amount,  their  profits  are  stated  to 
be  large.  As  the  independents  also 
make  a good  profit,  the  coal  roads,  by 
controlling  all  the  mines,  would  in- 
crease .their  earnings,  as  well  as  have 
the  situation  entirely  in  their  hands. 

Source  of  Irritation. 

The  independents,  although  relying 
upon  the  big  roads  to  market  their  pro- 
duct, have  been  a source  of  constant 
irritation  to  the  big  companies.  It  is 
not  so  long  ago  that  an  independent 
railroad  to  New  York  from  the  upper 
coal  field  was  planned  and  the  big  com- 
panies found  it  necessary,  in 
order  to  prevent  it,  to  buy 
out  the  operators  backing  the 
scheme.  Now  again  they  see  a profit- 
able venture  and  self-protection  in  the 
gradual  absorption  of  all  the  small 
companies. 

These  would  be  parcelled  out  to  the 
railroads  which  now  carry  their  coal  to 
market,  as  far  as  desired  by  those 
roads.  Some  would  not  want  to  in- 
crease their  holdings  greatly.  The  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western,  for 
instance,  would  take  few,  while  the 
Erie  and  the  New  York,  Ontario  and 
Western  would  eagerly  take  all  those 
along  their  lines.  The  Erie  taps  the 
Scranton  and  the  Pittston  districts  and 
has  a good  highway  to  tidewater.  The 
New  York,  Ontario  and  Western,  with 
its  road  tapping  many  of  the  independ- 
ent mines  in  the  Scranton  district, 
could  readily  handle  all  the  coal  these 
collieries  give  it,  and  others  besides; 
while  the  Delaware  and  Hudson,  reach- 
ing most  points  in  the  upper  coal  field 
and  with  its  big  trade  possibilities  in 
the  north  and  east,  is  considered  one 
of  the  largest  factors  in  the  proposed 
scheme. 

Owing  to  its  large  through  traffic  and 
the  fact  that  its  big  passenger  and 
freight  traffic  would  interfere  with  its 
taking  large  new  coal  interests,  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
might  not  take  many  of  the  properties. 
It  now  ships  about  5,000,000  tons  a year, 
while  the  Erie  does  not  ship  half  that 
amount  of  its  own  coal,  and  the  New 
York,  Ontario  and  Western  is  a still 
smaller  factor. 

Lehigh  Valley’s  Position. 

The  Lehigh  Valley  with  its  lines  east 


and  west,  and  its  connections  with  the 
Philadelphia  and  Reading,  would  be  one 
of  the  largest  movers  in  the  proposed 
scheme,  tapping  as  it  does  the  Pittston, 
Wilkes-Barre,  Hazleton  and  some  of 
the  Schuylkill  region,  while  the  Phila- 
delphia and  Reading,  with  almost  all 
the  Schuylkill  region  at  its  command 
and  already  thirty-seven  collieries  of 
its  own,  could  add  some  6,000,000  tons 
a year  to  its  output  and  send  it  to  the 
large  trade  it  has  in  the  south. 

Another  feature  which  would  be  made 
a portion  of  the  plan  would  be  a saving 
by  dispensing  with  the  middlemen.  If 
the  entire  anthracite  field  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  big  companies,  they,  acting 
for  mutual  interest,  could  save  by  dis- 
pensing with  the  middleman  about  $25. - 
000,000  a year,  it  being  estimated  that 
his  services  cost  the  companies  close 
to  fifty  cents  a ton. 

Operators  who  have  spoken  about  the 
plan,  while  admitting  that  it  is  not  ripe 
yet  owing  to  the  aggressive  attitude  of 
the  independents  and  their  supreme  con- 
fidence in  their  power,  declare  that  the 
scheme  will  probably  culminate  within 
a year  in  the  intended  absorption.  As 
far  as  affecting  the  independents’  po- 
sition in  the  present  strike  is  concerned 
it  is  not  likely  to  have  much  direct  ef- 
fect. Speaking  of  the  prospect  of  the 
absorption  plan  being  effective  soon  one 
big  operator  said: 

“It  is  impossible  to  say  when  the  ne- 
gotiations, if  there  are  any,  will  com- 
mence. No  definite  plans  have  as  far 
as  I understand  it,  been  formed  yet, 
the  operators  are  too  busy  with  the 
hearings  before  the  commission,  but  I 
consider  the  absorption  of  the  independ- 
ents a plan  which  will  not  be  long  in 
developing.” 

Estimated  Value. 

The  appended  table  shows  the  esti- 
mated value  of  the  independent  operat- 
ors’ workings,  their  output  and  the 
railroad  companies  that  will  likely  take 
them  when  an  apportionment  would  be 
made: 

Scranton— Output,  3,861,372  tons;  value 
$25,000,000;  Ontario  and  Western,  Delaware 
and  Hudson,  Erie,  Delaware.  Lackawanna 
and  Western. 

Pittston— Output,  2,070,890  tons;  value, 
$18,000,000;  Erie,  Delaware  and  Hudson, 
Lehigh  Valley. 

Wilkes-Barre  — Output.  1.620,802  tons; 
value,  $14,000,000:  Lehigh  Valley,  Delaware 
and  Hudson,  Central  Railroad  of  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern. 

Hazleton— Output,  5,354,574  tons;  value, 
$38,000,000;  Lehigh  Valley,  Pennsylvania. 

Schuylkill— Output,  6,152,890  tons;  value, 
$50,000,000;  Philadelphia  and  Reading;  Le- 
high Valley,  Pennsylvania. 

Total  —Output,  18,361,708  tons;  value, 
$145,000,000. 

Total  output  for  1901,  59,905.951  tons. 


Testimony  Heard  at  Yesterday’s  Ses- 
sion. 

Most  of  yesterday’s  session  of  the 
commission  was  consumed  in  the  re- 
ception of  evidence  bearing  on  the  al- 
leged discrimination  against  union  men 


after  the  strike.  Witnesses  from  Scran- 
ton, Freeland,  Avoca,  and  Olyphant 
were  presented  in  support  of  the  min- 
ers’ contentions  on  this  score.  Two 
clergymen,  Rev.  Dr.  Moore,  of  Avoca. 
and  Rev.  J,  J.  Curran,  of  Wilkes- 
Barre,  gave  testimony  on  general  con- 
ditions tending  to  favor  the  miners’ 
cause. 

The  commissioners  showed  more  im- 
patience at  the  absence  of  the  really  im- 
portant and  helpful  testimony  they 
counted  on  getting  upon  reassembling 
after  the  recess  and  in  the  afternoon 
announced  that  they  had  drawn  up  a 
statement  of  the  testimony  they  want 
and  would  be  pleased  to  confer  with 
the  attorneys  in  the  evening  regarding 
it.  Counsel  for  all  the  parties  in  inter- 
est met  with  the  commissioners  last  ev- 
ening and  received  the  commissioners’ 
ideas  in  this  regard. 

Attorney  Reynolds  called  the  atten- 
tion of  the  commission  to  the  fact  that 
the  People's  Coal  company  had  become^ 
a party  to  the  agreement  with  the  pro- 
vision that  it  should  not.  by  any  award 
of  the  commission,  be  compelled  to 
break  its  promise  to  keep  in  employ- 
ment the  non-union  men  who  worked 
for  them  during  the  strike.  This  is  a 
moral  obligation  which  Mr.  Crawford, 
the  president  of  the  company,  does  not 
want  to  be  compelled  to  break. 

Judge  Gray  declined  to  express  a*- 
opinion  on  the  question  of  the  status  uf 
the  non-unionist  which  was  involved  in 
Mr.  Reynolds’  “notice.”  "We  cannot 
accept  any  provisional  submissions,” 
said  he.  Mr.  Reynolds  later  announced 
that  Mr.  Crawford  agreed  to  uncondi- 
tional submission. 

Marwick’s  Testimony. 

William  Marwick,  who  was  an  en- 
gineer who  went  on  strike  at  the  Del- 
aware, Lackawanna  and  Western  mine, 
who  was  not  re-employed,  was  on  the 
stand  at  the  end  of  Thursday’s  session 
and  was  recalled  at  the  opening  of  yes- 
terday’s session.  After  there  had  been 
some  discussion  between  Major  Warren 
and  Mr.  Darrow,  in  which  the  commis- 
sioners took  an  occasional  hand,  con- 
cerning the  relevancy  of  the  testimony, 
the  commission  decided  to  hear  him. 

Attorney  James  T.  Lenahan  then  pro- 
ceeded to  examine  the  witness.  He 
brought  out  that  engineers  at  this 
colliery  worked  twelve  hours  a day 
and  twenty-four  hours  on  Sunday.  The 
witness  also  stated  that  at  times  he  was 
called  upon  to  work  three,  four  and  five 
shifts  continuously,  because  there  was 
no  one  to  be  secured  who  could  handle 
the  extra  heavy  engines  there. 

Since  the  strike,  two  men  are  doing 
the  work  witness  used  to  do,  and  be- 
sides a smaller  engine  has  been  put  in 
to  be  used  in  reversing  the  big  engine. 
It  is  so  hard  to  handle  the  levers  of 
these  engines  and  the  nervous  strain 
is  so  great  because  of  constant  watch- 
fulness required  that  one  man  had  to 
give  up  the  job  after  two  months,  be- 
cause of  his  health  breaking  down.  He 
was  paid  $2.31  a day. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


To  show  to  the  commission  that  he 
was  not  the  kind  of  a man  who  deserved 
to  be  charged  with  trying  to  destroy  his 
employer’s  property,  the  witness  recited 
half  a dozen  instances  of  more  or  less 
heroic  work  in  putting  out  fires,  rescu- 
ing miners  and  the  like.  He  did  not 
leave  his  job,  he  averred,  to  jeopardize 
his  employer’s  property.  Before  quit- 
ting, he  gave  the  notice  contained  in 
the  call  of  the  union  that  he  would  quit 
unless  allowed  eight  hours. 

Received  Tull  Pay. 

On  cross-examination  Major  Warren 
sought  to  discount  the  witness’  hard- 
ship story  and  to  this  end  brought  out 
admissions  that,  for  several  months, 
while  the  Sloan  was  idle,  the  witness 
received  full  pay  as  an  engineer  for  do- 
ing odd  jobs  and  such  little  hoisting  as 
was  called  for,  and  that  he  was  one  of  a 
committee  of  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  engineers  who  on  Febru- 
ary 12,  last,  requested  District  Superin- 
tendent Williams  in  writing  that  the 
swing  shift  be  not  abolished,  but  that 
the  twenty-four  hour  Sunday  shift  be 
continued. 

Questions  by  Major  Warren  regarding 
the  request  of  President  Mitchell  from 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern steam  men  that  they  be  excepted 
from  the  strike  order,  precipitated  a 
lengthy  discussion  regarding  the  calling 
out  of  the  steam  men,  in  which  Presi- 
dent Mitchell  took  a hand. 

Major  Warren  brought  out  that  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
steam  men  held  a meeting  in  St.  David’s 
hall,  June  1,  and  framed  a letter  to 
President  Mitchell,  setting  forth  that 
they  had  been  forced  into  the  mine 
workers’  union  against  their  wishes; 
that  they  did  not  want  to  be  ordered 
on  strike;  that  if  the  strike  order  was 
not  rescinded  as  to  them,  they  would  be 
compelled  to  disobey  it,  and  that  Pres- 
ident Mitchell  declined  to  grant  their  re- 
quest and  that  only  nine  out  of  the 
eighty  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  men  obeyed  the  order  to  strike. 

After  showing  that  in  the  1900  strike 
the  steam  men  were  not  called  out  and 
yet  shared  in  the  ten  per  cent  advance, 
Major  Warren  asked  the  witness  why 
it  was  they  went  out  in  the  last  strike 
if  it  was  not  to  abandon  the  company's 
property  to  destruction.  The  witness 
replied  that  he  struck  because  he  want- 
ed to  get  an  eight  hour  day.  He  de- 
manded the  eight  hour  day  and  when  it 
was  not  granted,  joined  the  strikers. 

Judge  Gray  inquired  if  it  was  not 
true  that  the  steam  men  conducted  an 
independent  strike.  He  had  so  under- 
stood from  Mr.  Mitchell’s  testimony, 
he  said. 

Major  Warren  said'  the  commission- 
er’s idea  of  the  affairs  was  entirely 
wrong.  The  strike  was  ordered  and 
conducted  by  the  mine  workers. 

Why  They  Affiliated. 

Mr.  Torrey  sought  to  throw  some 
light  on  the  affair  by  outlining  the  mat- 
ters which  led  up  to  the  affiliation  of 
the  steam  men  with  the  miners’  union. 


The  American  Federation  of  Labor,  he 
explained,  with  which  both  were  allied, 
decreed,  at  the  instance  of  the  mine 
workers,  that  engineers  and  firemen, 
working  about  collieries,  should  forego 
the  jurisdiction  of  their  own  organiza- 
tions and  join  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers. The  steam  men  protested  against 
this,  but  were  overruled. 

Judge  Gray  asked  if  it  was  not  true 
that  the  steam  men  would  have  re- 
mained at  work  if  the  companies  had 
granted  their  demand  for  eight  hours. 

Some  miner  in  the  rear  of  the  room 
clapped  his  hands  vigorously  at  this 
seeming  “poser”  from  the  chairman.  A 
tipstaff  cautioned  him  not  to  repeat  the 
demonstration. 

Major  Warren  answered  the  judge’s 
question  by  saying  that  at  the  Lack- 
awanna colliery  of  the  Temple  Iron 
company,  the  eight  hour  demand  was 
granted  yet  the  steam  men  went  out. 

President  Mitchell  in  explanation  of 
this  stated  that  the  Temple  company 
granted  an  eight  hour  day  at  some  of 
its  collieries  and  refused  it  at  others. 
It  was  because  the  company  failed  to 
conform  to  the  demand  to  grant  all  its 
steam  men  the  eight  hour  day  that 
those  to  whom  it  was  granted  would  not 
accept  it. 

Continuing,  President  Mitchell  de- 
nied that  the  miners’  union  absorbed 
the  steam  men  against  the  latters’ 
wishes.  The  protest  made  to  the  Am- 
erican Federation  of  Labor  was  an  Ill- 
inois affair.  The  strike  of  the  steam 
men,  he  reiterated,  was  projected  by 
the  steam  men  themselves.  The  order 
from  the  United  Mine  Workers  was  that 
they  should  remain  at  work  and  pro- 
tect the  companies’  property,  provided 
they  were  granted  an  eight  hour  work 
day.  Some  operators  conceded  the  de- 
mand, Mr.  Mitchell  went  on  to  say,  and 
their  men  remained  at  work.  Later  a 
few  of  them  withdrew  the  concession 
at  the  behest  of  the  big  companies. 
One  individual  operator  in  the  Hazelton 
region  made  a secret  agreement  with 
his  steam  men  that  they  should  be 
granted  the  eight  hour  day  provided 
it  was  not  noised  about.  He  was  afraid 
the  big  companies  would  hear  of  it. 

Read  Resolutions. 

In  contradiction  of  Mr.  Mitchell’s 
statement  regarding  the  protest  of 
steam  men  against  absorption  by  the 
Miners’  union,  Mr.  Torrey  read  the  res- 
olutions adopted  by  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  steam  men 
at  St.  David’s  hall,  in  which  it  was  set 
forth  that  they  had  been  compelled  to 
disband  their  separate  organizations; 
that  they  had  protested  vigorously 
against  this  at  the  national  convention, 
and  that  their  protest  had  been  ignored. 

W.  H.  Taylor  asked  Mr.  Mitchell  who 
it  was  directed  the  steam  men  to  come 
out. 

Mr.  Mitchell  replied  that  it  was  the 
executive  board  of  Districts  1,  7 and  9. 
under  authority  delegated  to  them  by 
the  Hazelton  convention. 

This,  Mr.  Taylor  contended,  indicated 


69 

the  steam  men  did  not  conduct  a sep- 
arate strike. 

“Then  we  are  to  understand,”  said 
Chairman  Gray,  “that  the  steam  men 
had  no  separate  organization  and  were 
ordered  to  come  out  by  the  United  Mine 
Workers  unless  they  got  an  eight  hour 
day?” 

Silence  assented  to  this  being  a fair 
settlement  of  the  situation. 

Major  Warren  spoke  briefly  to  im- 
press on  the  commission  the  signifi- 
cance of  his  point  that  two  years  ago 
the  steam  men  got  a raise  in  wages 
without  joining  in  the  strike,  and  that 
it  follows  they  would  have  shared  in 
whatever  victory  the  miners  won  with- 
out sharing  in  the  strike. 

The  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Mar- 
nick  was  then  resumed.  Major  War- 
ren elicited  from  him  the  fact  that  he 
went  to  Buffalo  a few  days  after  quit- 
ting his  post  at  the  Sloan,  secured  a 
job  at  $2.25  for  ten  hours  and  worked 
at  it  for  five  months,  yet  when  the 
strike  was  declared  off  he  hastened 
back  to  Scranton  and  applied  for  his 
$78  a month,  twelve-hours-a-day  job. 

On  re-direct  examination  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row,  the  witness  said  he  came  back 
from  Buffalo  because  his  home  and 
family  are  here. 

William  Major,  chief  of  police  of 
Moosic,  who  was  refused  re-employ- 
ment at  the  Law  shaft  of  the  Erie  com- 
pany at  Avoca,  testified  that  Superin- 
tendent Henry  McMillan  told  him  he 
was  refused  his  job  because  he  “called 
scabs  at  people,”  which,  the  witness 
maintained,  was  a false  accusation. 

Joseph  O’Brien,  representing  the  non- 
union men,  asked  a few  questions  as 
to  Mr.  Major’s  whereabouts  at  various 
times,  with  a view  of  laying  grounds 
for  future  contradiction. 

’Twould  Be  Fuuny. 

Major  Warren  asked  the  witness  if  it 
was  not  true  that  he  had  threatened 
harm  to  one  Thomas  J.  Brown,  who 
was  working  at  an  Erie  washery  in 
Pittston.  Chief  Major  admitted  having 
encountered  Brown  bound  for  work,  but 
denied  having  threatened  him  or  any 
other  man.  “It  would  be  funny, 
wouldn’t  it,”  said  the  witness  with 
some  show  of  offended  dignity,  “to  see 
a police  officer  of  Moosic  borough 
threatening  people?” 

The  major  declined  to  commit  him- 
self in  'an  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not 
this  would  be  funny. 

Tony  Lorri,  a 22-year-old  employe  of 
Coxe  Bros.  & Co.  at  Drifton,  told  that 
he-  was  refused  reinstatement  and  that 
he  had  not  done  anything  which  would 
justify  the  company  in  not  taking  him 
back. 

“You  acted  as  interpreter  among  the 
Italians  for  the  union,  a great  deal, 
didn’t  you,  Tony?”  Attorney  McCarthy 
asked. 

“Yes.  sir." 

“That’s  the  only  reason,  as  far  as 
you  know,  why  you  didn’t  get  your  job 
back,  is  it?” 

The  “question”  was  about  the  limit 


70 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


thus  far  in  the  way  of  latitude  in  ex- 
amining a witness  and  provoked  loud 
laughter  among  the  attorneys.  Judge 
Gray  was  facing  Mr.  McCarthy,  appar- 
ently bent  on  gently  reminding  him 
that  there  was  a limit,  but  Mr.  Mc- 
Carthy indicated  by  gestures  and  nods 
that  the  judge  needn’t  admonish  him, 
and  the  two  joined  in  the  general 
laughter. 

Rev.  Dr.  James  Moore,  of  Avoca,  who, 
it  will  be  remembered,  addressed  a 
number  of  miners’  mass  meetings  dur- 
ing the  strike,  was  the  next  witness 
put  on  the  stand.  He  is  pastor  of  the 
Primitive  Methodist  church  at  Avoca, 
and  has  spent  most  of  his  twenty-one 
years  in  the  ministry  in  Avoca,  Ply- 
mouth, Shenandoah  and  other  mining 
towns.  All  the  adult  male  members  of 
his  present  flock  are  miners,  with  the 
exception  of  one,  who  is  a mine  black- 
smith. All  of  them  were  strikers,  ex- 
cept a superintendent,  a fireboss  and  a 
driver  boss. 

His  congregation,  he  told,  numbers 
300.  There  are  twenty-five  household- 
ers in  the  number.  He  believed  most  of 
these  homes  were  mortgaged.  The 
miners  are,  he  said,  nice,  law-abiding 
people.  “They  cannot  be  surpassed,’’ 
he  declared. 

Examined  Due  Bills. 

He  examined  thirty-nine  due  bills  of 
three  miners.  They  were  for  the  years 
1898  and  1899.  Averaging  them  he  found 
that  for  419  ten-hour  days  the  pay  was 
$487.15.  They  were  the  due  bills,  he 
understood,  of  contract  miners. 

This  was  insufficient,  he  thought,  for 
the  support  of  a family.  He  knew  of 
boys  of  miners’  families  being  sent  to 
the  breaker  when  they  were  barely  able 
to  carry  a dinner  pail.  Daughters  of 
the  family  went  into  the  mills  and  fac- 
tories at  a very  early  age. 

Miners,  he  asserted,  do  not  drink 
more  than  the  average  workman.  Dur- 
ing the  five  and  one-half  months  of  the 
strike,  in  Avoca,  a town  of  4,500  in- 
habitants, he  saw  only  one  drunken 
man.  Special  efforts  were  made  by 
clergymen,  mine  workers’  leaders  and 
other  men  of  influence  to  promote 
sobriety  during  the  strike.  The  witness 
declared  he  never  lived  in  a more 
peaceable  community  than  Avoca  was 
during  the  strike. 

Under  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Tor- 
rey,  Dr.  Moore  admitted  he  saw  four 
effigies  suspended  in  Avoca  during  the 
strike.  He  contended  they  were  hung 
by  mischievous  boys,  and  to  indicate 
that  they  were  hung  indiscriminately 
he  told  that  one  of  them  was  suspended 
in  front  of  his  own  house. 

Attorney  H.  C.  Reynolds  next  cross- 
examined  Dr.  Moore.  Mr.  Reynolds  de- 
veloped the  fact  that  the  best  paid 
Primitive  Methodist  clergyman  in  the 
United  States  receives  less  than  $1,200 
salary  per  annum,  and  that  the  aver- 
age salary  of  the  clergymen  of  this  de- 
nomination in  the  local  field  is  $600. 
Dr.  Moore  said  his  salary  is  about  $700 
a year. 


Since  the  strike,  the  witness  has  seen 
about  half  a dozen  drunks.  He  saw 
them  on  or  immediately  after  pay  day. 
“The  miner,  you  know,”  said  the  wit- 
ness with  evident  anxiety  to  qualify 
his  admission,  “is  not  addicted  to  drink 
and  just  a little  will  upset  him.” 

Question  of  Wages. 

Mr.  Reynolds  took  the  witness  back 
to  the  question  of  wages  and  sought  to 
demonstrate  that  if  a clergyman,  who 
has  many  expenses  not  necessary  to  a 
miner’s  mode  of  living,  such  as  extra 
quality  of  clothing,  books,  entertain- 
ment of  guests  and  the  like,  can  live 
on  a salary  of  $700  a year,  a miner 
ought  to  be  able  to  live  well  within  his 
station  for  $487.15. 

Dr.  Moore’s  comment  on  this  was: 
“Well,  Mr.  Reynolds,  I would  say  to 
that,  if  you  please,  that  the  ministers 
are  not  receiving  enough.” 

“Why  don’t  you  strike,  doctor?” 
chimed  in  the  ready  Mr.  Torrey. 

When  the  laughter  had  subsided,  Dr. 
Moore  rejoined  that  he  would  strike  if 
he  was  not  afraid  some  one  would  take 
his  place. 

The  witness  admitted  he  had  made 
no  computations  as  to  the  relative 
earnings  of  miners  and  other  workmen 
in  the  community,  and  that  he  went 
about  to  the  mass  meetings  encourag- 
ing the  miners  in  their  demand  for 
higher  wages,  with  his  faith  in  the  jus- 
tice of  this  demand  founded  mainly  on 
his  general  observation  that  miners 
were  not  receiving  enough  wages  to  live 
with  any  degree  of  comfort. 

In  the  cross-examination  of  the  next 
witness,  Peter  Ingoldsby,  of  Grassy 
Island,  one  of  the  big  companies,  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson,  put  in  the  first 
bit  of  the  statistical  evidence  it  has 
been  preparing  for  two  months  past  to 
show  to  the  public,  and  incidentally  the 
commission,  that  the  miner’s  recital  of 
his  ills  are  sometimes  to  be  slightly 
discounted. 

Mr.  Ingoldsby  was  a miner  at  the 
Grassy  Island  colliery  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company  for  fifteen  years. 
He  was  active  in  the  union  during  the 
strike,  and  was  not  re-employed.  He 
was  one  of  four  men  from  this  colliery 
whom  the  union  put  on  the  stand  to 
prove  the  contention  that  men  whose 
only  offense  was  zealous  fidelity  to 
their  union,  are  being  discriminated 
against  to  the  extent  of  being  refused 
employment. 

His  story,  in  substance,  on  direct  ex- 
amination by  Attorney  James  L.  Lena- 
han,  was  that  he  received  69  cents  a 
ton  for  sending  out  coal;  that  he  aver- 
aged only  two  cars  a shift;  that  the 
laborer  had  to  be  paid  25  cents  a ton 
out  of  this,  and  that  he  worked  usually 
from  6.30  in  the  morning  until  5.30  in 
the  evening. 

Mr.  Ingoldsby  was  on  the  stand  at 
the  noon  recess.  His  examination  was 
resumed  by  Attorney  James  L.  Lena- 
han  at  the  opening  of  the  afternoon 
session. 


Very  Wet  Mine. 

He  testified  that  the  Grassy  Island  is 
a very  wet  mine  and  only  once  in  his 
experience  was  he  allowed  anything  for 
bailing  water.  Then  he  got  two  cents  a 
ton  added  to  his  car  for  this  extra 
work. 

When  the  strike  was  over,  the  fire- 
boss told  him  he  was  not  to  go  in  until 
he  saw  Foreman  Lewis.  The  foreman 
told  him  his  “number  was  stopped,” 
and  he  went  home.  Later  he  saw  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  Rose.  Mr.  Rose 
seemed  to  know  nothing  about  the  case 
and  referred  him  back  to  Foreman 
Lewis.  The  foreman  gave  him  no  sat- 
isfaction and  no  reason  for  refusing 
him  re-employment. 

The  witness  admitted  he  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  strike  and  suc- 
ceeded by  moral  persuasion  in  inducing 
three  men  to  quit  work,  one  of  whom 
was  a son  and  another  a nephew  of 
Foreman  Lewis. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Torrey  ad- 
duced admissions  from  the  witness  that 
in  addition  to  what  he  earned  for  cut- 
ting coal  he  got  allowances  for  yard- 
age and  the  like.  That  he  must  have 
been  receiving  some  allowances  was 
made  apparent  a moment  later  when 
Mr.  Torrey  presented  the  following 
summary  of  Mr.  Ingoldsby’s  earnings 
during  the  year  1901: 

January.  $113.43;  February,  $S7.07; 
March,  $100.46;  April,  $52.66:  May,  $95.- 
07;  June,  $103;  July,  $94.50;  August.  $90.- 
57;  September.  $95.71;  October,  $7S.0S; 
November,  $77.61:  December.  S6S.3S; 

total.  $1,056.54. 

This,  Mr.  Torrey  explained,  represent- 
ed the  miner’s  gross  earnings  after  all 
charges  for  powder,  oil,  etc.,  were  de- 
ducted. Out  of  this  he  had  to  pay  his 
laborer.  The  miner,  according  to  the 
estimates  made  by  the  company,  re- 
ceives 5S  per  cent,  and  the  laborer  42 
per  cent,  of  the  net  earnings.  This 
would  give  Mr.  Ingoldsby  a net  earning 
in  1901  of  $630. 

Judge  Gray,  addressing  the  miners' 
representatives,  asked  if  this  proportion 
of  the  division  of  earnings  was  ad- 
mitted to  be  correct.  Mr.  Darrow  re- 
sponded that  his  side  estimated  the 
proportion  at  60  per  cent,  for  the  miner 
and  40  per  cent,  for  the  laborer. 

Thought  It  Too  High. 

The  witness  was  asked  if  Mr.  Tor- 
rey’s  statement  of  his  earnings  was 
correct.  He  said  he  didn't  know,  but 
believed  it*  was  too  high.  Mr.  Torrey 
said  the  company  would  prove  it  was 
absolutely  correct. 

Turning  attention  to  the  claim  of  the 
witness  that  he  was  being  kept  out  of 
employment  because  of  his  connection 
with  the  union,  Mr.  Torrey  had  the 
witness  admit  that  he  was  arrested  and 
is  still  under  bail  for  throwing  stones 
at  the  soldiers  in  Olyphant.  The  wit- 
ness denied  that  he  distributed 'lists  of 
non-union  workmen  to  Olyphant  mer- 
chants with  a demand  that  they  refuse 
to  sell  them  provisions,  under  penalty 
of  being  boycotted. 


Before  dismissing-  the  witness,  Mr. 
Torrey  secured  from  him  an  admission 
that  he  often  finished  his  day’s  work 
before  noon,  and  that  he  knew  of  the 
fact  that  mine  workers  at  the  Grassy 
Island  are  now  refusing  to  work  in  a 
certain  heading  because  William  Hill, 
who  had  it  before  the  strike,  has  not 
been  re-employed.  The  witness  denied 
he  told  the  young  son  of  John  Smakola 
that  his  father  would  be  killed  like 
Winston  if  he  worked  in  the  Hill  head- 
ing. The  excuse  District  Superintend- 
ent Benentt  gave  the  witness  for  not 
re-employing  him,  he  admitted,  was  be- 
cause the  company  had  too  many  men. 

Robert  Jones,  who  was  a hoisting  en- 
gineer at  the  Lackawanna  colliery  of 
the  Temple  Iron  company,  said,  in  an- 
swer to  questions  by  Attorney  John 
Shea,  that  he  was  refused  re-employ- 
ment at  the  close  of  the  strike,  al- 
though he  had  applied  four  times. 
Major  Warren  dismissed  him  after 
eliciting  the  fact  that  he  left  his  posi- 
tion voluntarily,  and  that  the  company 
immediately  put  another  man  in  his 
place. 

Had  Too  Many  Men. 

James  Reap,  a Delaware  and  Hudson 
miner  from  Olyphant,  told  that  he  was 
refused  re-employment  and  that  Dis- 
trict Superintendent  Bennett  would  only 
say  to  him  that  the  company  had  too 
many  men.  He  was  a member  of  the 
union  relief  committee.  Mr.  Torrey  had 
no  questions  to  ask  him  on  cross-ex- 
amination. Thomas  Powell,  a Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  miner  at  Olyphant 
No.  2,  had  a similar  story  to  tell.  Mr. 
Torrey  contented  himself  with  extract- 
ing from  the  witness  the  information 
that  the  chamber  Mr.  Powell  had  been 
working  was  cut  off  by  a fall  of  roof 
during  the  strike,  and  that  there  was 
only  enough  coal  left  in  the  place,  at 
all  events,  to  give  him  a few  weeks’ 
work.  The  witness  insisted  that  it 
would  pay  the  company  to  open  up  the 
chamber. 

S.  W.  Jane,  president  of  the  Grassy 
Island  local,  was  not  re-employed  after 
the  strike,  being  told  by  District  Super- 
intendent Bennett  the  company  had  too 
many  men.  He  went  to  see  General 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

Superintendent  Rose,  and  Mr.  Rose  re- 
ferred him  back  to  Mr.  Bennett.  Mr. 
Jane  and  three  others  of  the  union  men, 
who  were  refused  re-employment,  wait- 
ed on  District  Superintendent  Bennett 
and  complained  to  him  that  his  grounds 
for  refusing  to  take  them  back  were 
unstable,  because  new  men  were  being 
employed.  Mr.  Bennett  asked  him  to 
name  a single  new  man  who  had  been 
taken  on.  The  witness  gave  him  the 
name  of  John  Watkins.  Mr.  Bennett 
took  a note  of  the  name  and  said  he 
would  look  into  the  matter. 

On  cross-examination  Mr.  Torrey 
brought  out  an  admission  from  the  wit- 
ness that  Watkins  went  to  work  dur- 
ing the  strike. 

Blind  and  Crippled. 

John  Price  and  David  J.  Davis,  two 
blind  and  badly  crippled  men,  who  had 
received  their  disabilities  as  the  result 
of  premature  explosions  in  West  Scran- 
ton mines  of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  company,  were  brought 
before  the  commission  and  examined 
in  turn  as  to  how  they  came  by  their 
injuries,  and  what  the  company  has 
done  for  them.  Mr.  Price  had  both  eyes 
blinded,  his  left  arm  blown  off  and  his 
right  hand  badly  crippled.  The  com- 
pany gave  him  $12.50  a month  for  one 
year  after  the  accident.  Mr.  Davis  had 
both  eyes  blown  out,  his  left  ear  torn 
off.  his  right  hand  crippled  and  a big 
hole  cut  in  his  breast  by  an  explosion. 
The  company  gave  him  $25  or  $30  in 
cash  and  free  coal  for  a year. 

The  only  cross-examination  was  one 
question  put  to  the  last  witness  by  Mr. 
Burns.  “Did  you  have  any  connection 
with  the  1902  strike?”  he  asked.  The 
witness  said  no. 

Then  Mr.  Burns  criticised  the  action 
of  the  other  side  in  bringing  in  “har- 
rowing spectacles”  to  prey  on  the  sym- 
pathies of  the  commission. 

Judge  Gray  would  not*  coincide  with 
Mr.  Burns’  view.  He  expressed  the 
opinion  that  such  evidence,  while  not 
pleasant  to  receive,  was  perfectly 
proper.  He  hoped,  however,  it  would 
not  be  carried  to  an  extreme. 

Mr.  Darrow  assured  the  commission- 
ers he  would  not  overdo  the  thing.  At- 


71 

torney  Reynolds  asked  how  it  would 
look  if  the  companies  brought  in  the 
widow  and  children  of  James  Winston, 
the  victim  of  the  horrible  murder  at 
Grassy  Island. 

The  last  witness  of  the  day  was  Rev. 
John  J.  Curran,  pastor  of  Holy  Savior 
Roman  Catholic  church,  of  Wilkes- 
Barre.  He  worked  in  the  mines  for 
seven  years  and  has  spent  his  whole  life 
among  miners.  Among  the  interesting 
things  he  told  was  that  there  are  20,- 
000  total  abstainers  in  the  anthracite 
region. 

Detailed  Conditions. 

He  told  in  detail  of  the  conditions  of 
the  miners,  which,  to  his  mind,  war- 
ranted their  grievances,  and  declared 
that  the  stories  of  the  disorder  during 
the  strike  were  grossly  exaggerated. 
In  proof  of  this  statement  he  exhibited 
an  illustration  in  John  Wannamaker’s 
Everybody’s  Magazine,  showing  an  al- 
leged photograph  of  a riot  scene.  It 
represented  a non-union  man  being 
overpowered  and  mobbed  by  strikers. 
The  non-union  victim  was  identified  by 
Father  Curran  as  one  of  his  parish- 
ioners, William  McGroarty,  who  was 
one  of  the  most  ardent  union  men  in 
Wilkes-Barre.  The  "scene”  was  Balti- 
more lane,  two  blocks  from  the  witness’ 
residence.  No  such  affair  ever  occur- 
red, Father  Curran  asserted.  The 
characters  in  the  scene  had  been  hired 
by  a magazine  photographer  to  pose  in 
a mob-attack  attitude  for  a dollar  a 
head.  They  thought  it  was  fun. 

Judge  Gray  asked  the  witness  what 
he  thought  of  the  boycott  as  a weapon 
in  a strike.  He  answered  that  it  could 
be  carried  to  dangerous  extremes.  The 
judge  told  of  an  incident  in  the  last 
trolley  strike  here  where  four  girls  we'  e 
discharged  from  a store  because  the 
union  had  detected  them  riding  on  a 
car  and  demanded  that  they  be  dis- 
charged. Father  Curran  said  that  this 
was  wrong. 

“There  is  an  under  current  of  public 
feeling  now  in  motion,”  said  Father 
Curran,  “which  will  settle  this  sort  of 
thing.” 

“I  agree  with  you,”  quickly  retorted 
Judge  Gray.  “It  must  or  the  country 
will  go  to  pieces.” 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Dec.  6. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Deo.  8.] 


Another  step  towards  a settlement  of 
the  mine  strike  controversy  by  the 
case-stated  plan  told  of  in  Saturday’s 
Tribune  was  taken  at  the  session  of  the 
commission  Saturday  morning. 

Type-written  forms  outlining  the  in- 
formation the  commissioners  want  re- 
garding the  vital  features  of  the  in- 
quiry were  distributed  among  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  various  parties  with 
the  request  that,  if  possible,  they  agree 
to  the  facts  called  for.  . 

In  addition  to  specifying  what  infor- 
mation is  wanted,  the  commissioners 
indicate  the  manner  in  which  they 


would  have  it  presented.  Instead  of 
averages  as  to  wages,  for  instance,  they 
want  a table  showing  the  number  of 
men  who  earned  over  $1,000  a year;  the 
number  who  earned  between  $900  and 
$1,000;  between  $800  and  $900,  and  so  on 
down.  They  also  want  the  hours  of 
work  tabulated  in  such  form  ns  to  show 
how  many  full  days,  nine-hour  days, 
eight-hour  days,  and  so  on,  were 
worked.  Information  is  also  asked  for 
regarding  the  weighing  and  measuring 
of  coal  and  the  percentage  of  dockage. 

As  rapidly  as  possible  the  parties  to 
the  controversy  are  expected  to  prepare 


and  present  this  information.  The 
miners’  experts  are  now  going  over  the 
companies’  statistics  with  a view  of 
agreeing,  as  far  as  possible,  on  theii 
correctness.  The  information  asked  for 
by  the  commission  is  all  contained  in 
these  statistics,  though  it  is  not  in  the 
form  desired.  It  will  take  some  time 
to  re-arrange  the  data  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  commissioners’  re- 
quest. 

One  Session  Saturday. 

Only  one  session  of  the  commission 
was  held  Saturday.  At  1 o’clock  p.  m. 


72 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


adjournment  was  had  until  10  o’clock 
this  morning-,  to  give  the  representa- 
tives of  the  different  parties  an  oppor- 
tunity to  go  home  over  Sunday. 

Despite  their  declaration  that  they 
did  not  care  for  individual  statements 
of  wages,  hours  and  the  like,  the  com- 
missioners continue  to  hear  practically 
nothing  else.  That  they  are  doing  this 
is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  they 
recognize  an  effort  is  on  at  adjustment 
and  until  that  effort  is  either  successful 
or  abandoned,  neither  side  cares  to  do 
much  more  than  keep  the  press  gallery 
interested. 

At  the  opening  of  Saturday’s  session, 
Rev.  J.  J.  Curran,  who  was  on  the  stand 
at  adjourning-  time  Friday,  was  called 
for  cross-examination  by  Attorney  H. 
C.  Reynolds,  representing  the  independ- 
ent operators.  Mr.  Reynolds  tried  to 
have  it  appear  that  the  witness  had 
formed  his  opinions  concerning  the 
mining  situation  without  having  given 
it  close  study,  but  the  witness  insisted 
that  his  opinions  were  based,  for  the 
most  part,  on  personal  observations  and 
investigations. 

Troops  Unnecessary. 

Attorney  Joseph  O’Brien,  of  counsel 
for  the  non-union  men,  then  cross-ex- 
amined Father  Curran  on  the  matter  of 
strike  disorders.  Father  Curran,  on 
direct-examination,  asserted  that  the 
calling  out  of  the  troops  was  unneces- 
sary. Mr.  O’Brien  read  a set  of  reso- 
lutions passed  by  the  ministers  of 
Hazleton  during  the  strike,  deploring 
the  lawlessness,  boycotts  and  the  like 
that  then  existed,  and  asked  the  wit- 
ness if  he  concurred  in  the  sentiments 
therein  expressed.  Father  Curran  would 
not  admit  that  there  had  been  any 
great  amount  of  disorder. 

Mr.  O’Brien  read  a list  of  disorders 
that  occurred  the  day  before  the  sheriff 
called  for  troops  in  this  county,  and 
asked  the  witness  if  he  thought  that 
warranted  the  sheriff  in  making  a call 
for  troops.  The  witness  did  not  think 
so.  “If  the  troops  were  here,  those 
things  would  have  occurred  just  the 
same,”  he  added. 

When  the  cross-examination  of  Fa  ther 
Curran  was  ended,  Mr.  Darrow  pro- 
ceeded to  the  consideration  of  con- 
ditions at  the  collieries  of  G.  B.  Markle 
& Co.,  of  Hazleton.  Two  witnesses,  a 
breaker  boy  and  a miner,  were  put  on 
the  stand  to  tell  how  some  mine  work- 
ers never  receive  any  money  by  reason 
of  their  inability  to  get  out  of  the  com- 
pany’s debt. 

The  boy,  Andrew  Chippie,  told  that 
he  is  12  years  of  age,  and  picked  slate 
in  the  Jeddo  colliery  of  Markle  & Co. 
Four  years  ago,  his  father  was  killed 
in  the  mine.  The  father  was  then  owing 
the  company  $54.95.  The  mother  took 
in  boarders  and  worked  hard  to  sup- 
port herself  and  four  small  children, 
but  could  make  no  headway  and  had  to 
send  the  boy  into  the  breaker.  He  was 
given  a job  at  forty  cents  a day  or  four 
cents  an  hour. 


Was  Going  Backward. 

Six  weeks  before  the  strike  began  he 
went  to  work.  His  first  due  bill  cred- 
ited him  with  56%  hours  at  four  cents 
an  hour,  or  $2.26.  Charged  against  him 
was  the  $54.95  his  father  had  owed  the 
company;  $4.65  for  rent  and  $2.75  for 
coal.  This  left  the  boy  indebted  to  the 
company  $60.09.  His  next  due  bill,  dated 
November  15,  credited  him  with  eight 
hours  or  thirty-two  cents,  which  was 
the  balance  owing  him  when  he  went 
on  strike.  On  the  debit  side  was  a 
charge  of  $87.99  for  the  balance  of  the 
debt  owing  the  company  plus  the  rent 
for  the  strike  period.  There  was  also  a 
charge  of  fifty  cents  for  a brass  check, 
which  the  company  furnished  to  breaker 
boys.  This  left  the  boy  owing  the  com- 
pany $88.17. 

“You  weren’t  getting  ahead  very  fast, 
were  you?”  remarked  Judge  Gray. 

The  boy  also  told  of  the  hardships  of 
a slatepicker’s  life,  how  he  worked  in 
a bent  position  picking  the  cold,  wet 
slate  and  how  the  breaker  boss  some- 
times pulled  his  ears  to  make  him  work 
faster.  The  commissioners  were  deeply 
impressed  with  the  boy’s  recital,  and 
asked  him  a number  of  questions  con- 
cerning his  sorry  lot. 

James  Gallagher,  a Markle  & Co. 
miner,  60  years  of  age,  was  next  called 
to  the  stand.  He  was  refused  re-em- 
ployment at  the  close  of  the  strike,  and 
during  the  strike  was  evicted  from  a 
company  house.  He  supposed  he  was 
accorded  this  treatment  because  his  son 
was  secretary  of  the  local  of  the  miners’ 
union. 

Only  Fifty  Dollars. 

He  told  that  he  worked  at  one  stretch 
for  seventeen  years  and  nine  months 
without  drawing  any  pay,  except  once 
when  he  got  $50.  He  was  compelled  to 
trade  at  the  company  store,  he  said, 
and  was  unable  to  get  out  of  the  com- 
pany’s debt.  When  the  debt  would  get 
very  large,  the  company  would  give  him 
a good  chamber.  When  he  would  be 
nearly  out  of  debt,  he  would  be  put  in 
a bad  chamber  and  his  earnings  re- 
duced so  much,  thereby,  that  he  could 
not  get  out  of  debt.  His  pay  averaged 
less  than  $1.25  a day,  he  said. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  the  witness  if  he 
was  ever  hurt  in  the  mines. 

“A  man  is  never  hurt  in  the  mines 
unless  he  is  half-killed,”  said  the  wit- 
ness 

Well,  were  you  ever  half-killed?” 

“Yes,  indeed.” 

"How  many  times  were  you  half- 
killed?” 

“Twice.” 

“Then  you  were  killed  entirely.”  re- 
marked Judge  Gray,  after  the  laughter 
subsided. 

“No;  it  was  this  way.  The  first  half 
was  healed  before  I got  the  second.” 

He  was  evicted  from  the  company 
house,  he  stated,  two  days  after  receiv- 
ing notice  to  quit  the  premises.  His 
goods  were  thrown  out  in  the  road  dur- 
ing a rain  storm.  He  carried  them  into 
the  cellar  of  a neighbor’s  house.  His 


wife  was  old  and  feeble,  and  had  to  be 
helped  out  of  the  house  by  two  deputy 
sheriffs. 

He  also  told  that  one  of  his  sons  lost 
his  arm  while  in  the  employ  of  Markle 
& Co.,  and  that  when  he  went  to  the 
company’s  office  to  ask  for  assistance, 
was  told  that  Markle  & Co.  was  not  a 
charitable  institution. 

The  witness  was  cross-examined 
briefly  by  Attorney  George  R.  Bedford 
regarding  the  alleged  breach  of  agree- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  Markle  & Co. 
employes,  when  they  joined  in  the  1900 
strike.  That  agreement  was  in  effect 
that  the  men  would  not  strike  under 
any  consideration  without  first  submit- 
ting the  matter  in  dispute  to  a board  of 
arbitration.  The  men  hesitated  to  join 
the  1900  strike,  but  were  finally  per- 
suaded to  do  so  by  President  Mitchell. 

Referring  to  the  memorable  mass 
meeting  at  Jeddo,  at  which  President 
Mitchell  and  John  Markle  had  a 
lengthy  discussion,  Mr.  Bedford  tried  to 
have  the  witness  admit  that  President 
Mitchell  directly  urged  the  men  to  pay 
no  attention  to  their  agreement.  The 
witness  said  that  President  Mitchell 
was  addressing  Mr.  Markle  and  not  the 
men. 

Another  Markle  & Co.  miner.  Frank 
Ray,  was  called  to  the  stand  just  be- 
fore adjournment.  He  told  that  he 
worked  in  what  is  called  a “dog  hole,” 
which  is  somewhat  removed  from  the 
main  airways,  and  that  after  a shot 
was  fired  the  air  was  stifling.  He  never 
saw  the  mine  inspector  in  his  workings, 
he  said. 

During  the  session.  Commissioner 
Watkins  presented  the  following  addi- 
tional request  for  information  to  Mr. 
Darrow: 

After  the  settlement  of  the  1900  strike, 
which,  as  every  one  knows,  was  settled 
through  the  influence  of  outside  parties 
and  without  the  principals  getting  to- 
gether, the  companies  posted  a notice 
which  read  about  as  follows: 

"This  company  makes  the  following  an- 
nouncement to  its  mine  employes:  It  will 
adjust  Its  rate  of  wages  so  as  to  pay  its 
mine  employes  on  and  after  Oct.  1,  a net 
increase  of  10  per  cent,  on  the  wages 
heretofore  received,  and  will  take  up 
with  its  mine  employes  any  grievances 
which  they  may  have.” 

As  I remember,  it  was  agreed  through 
this  third  party,  by  both  sides,  that  the 
strike  should  be  called  off  and  work  re- 
sumed if  such  notice  were  posted  by  all 
the  anthracite  mining  companies,  which 
was  finally  done.  Now,  as  the  notice 
reads,  all  grievances  will  be  taken  up  by 
the  companies  with  their  own  employes, 
it  would  be  inferred  that  there  were 
some  grievances  on  the  part  of  the  min- 
ers that  were  not  covered  by  the  ad- 
vance in  wages. 

Attitude  of  Companies. 

Now.  what  I should  like  to  know  is. 
whether  you  intend  to  show,  or  whether 
you  think  that  in  taking  up  the-e  griev- 
ances there  was  anything  in  the  atti- 
tude of  the  company  officials  generally 
toward  the  committees  representing 
these  grievances  that  prevented  their 
having  a fair  and  free  discussion  in  or- 
der to  arrive  at  a satisfactory  settlement. 
And  also  whether  a proper  effort  or  any 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


73 


effort  was  made  by  the  mine  workers 
to  take  up  the  grievances  in  that  manner. 
As  is  well  known,  immediately  after  re- 
sumption of  work,  a number  of  strikes 
occurred  in  different  localities,  and  con- 
tinued to  occur,  until  the  general  strike 
was  ordered,  which  we  are  now  inves- 
tigating. 

The  point  in  my  question  is  this,  to 
learn  whether  any  efforts  were  made 
by  the  companies  to  get  into  close  and 
more  harmonious  relations  with  their 
own  employes,  and  did  the  employes  try 


to  get  settlement  in  this  manner,  as 
stated  In  the  notice;  or  was  everything 
regarding  the  adjustment  of  grievances 
left  to  officers  of  the  union,  whom  the 
operators  had  said  they  did  not  wish  to 
treat  with.  And  if  the  latter  were  the 
case,  was  it  one  of  the  reasons  for  the 
constantly  growing  trouble  and  irritation 
which  finally  led  up  to  the  strike  of  May 
12th? 

I am  of  the  opinion  that  we  should 
have  some  further  light  and  evidence  on 
the  manner  of  adjusting  grievances  in 


the  past,  arid  while  you  may  have  some 
witnesses  for  this  matter  whom  you  have 
not  brought  to  us  yet,  I am  asking  the 
question  now,  as  I think  the  methods 
and  experiences  of  the  past  may  guide 
the  commission  and  help  in  finding  some 
satisfactory  way  of  treating  these  ques- 
tions in  the  future. 

Mr.  Darrow  said  he  would  endeavor 
to  furnish  the  information  wanted. 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Dec.  8. 


One  of  the  principal  reasons  the  in-g« 
dependent  operators  advanced  for  not'f 
consenting  to  a settlement  out  of  court, 
was  that  they  wanted  vindication. 
They  claimed  they  could  show,  and 
would  show,  to  the  commission  and 
world  at  large  that  the  miners’  alle- 
gations against  them  were  unfounded; 
that  the  wages  paid  were  better  than 
received  by  other  classes  of  labor  from 
which  the  same  amount  of  skill,  ex- 
perience and  muscle  were  required,  and 
that  all  in  all  the  mine  worker  ought 
to  be  pretty  well  content  with  his  lot. 

Ever  since  the  hearings  were  re- 
sumed, last  Wednesday,  the  miners’ 
lawyers  have  been  whacking  away  at 
the  independents,  but  the  latter, 
strange  to  relate,  have  made  little  or 
no  attempt  at  striking  back  or  even 
defending  themselves.  Coxe  Bros.  & 
Co.,  a quasi-independent  concern,  was 
attacked  for  three  days,  but  did  not 
even  have  a lawyer  present.  Part  of 
Friday,  all  of  Saturday  and  all  of  yes- 
terday the  miners  poured  hot  shot  into 
George  B.  Markle  & Co.,  but  the  two 
lawyers  recorded  as  the  representa- 
tives of  this  firm,  -Samuel  Dickson,  of 
Philadelphia,  and  George  R.  Bedford, 
of  Wilkes-Barre,  remained  away  and 
left  the  miners  free  rein  to  nut  in  any 
kind  of  testimony  they  saw  fit,  and 
allowed  this  testimony  to  go  on  the  rec- 
ord and  to  the  commission  and  public 
without  being  controverted,  explained 
or  qualified  by  cross-examination. 

Damaging  Charge. 

ThP  very  last  bit  of  testimony  put  in 
yesterday  afternoon  was  a most  dam- 
aging charge  against  the  defendant 
company  and  the  companies’  side  in 
general,  but  it  was  allowed  to  go  un- 
challenged. As  is  generally  known,  the 
operators  have  claimed  all  along  that 
they  are  willing  and  anxious  to  adjust 
all  grievances  between  themselves  and 
their  own  employes,  and  that  they 
stood  ready  to  guarantee  them  fair  and 
just  treatment.  The  miners’  conten- 
tion is  that  the  companies  do  not  live 
up  to  this  agreement  and  that  it  is 
usually  the  case  that  the  men  who  rep- 
resent the  employes  on  the  grievance 
committees  are  always  discriminated 
against  and  ofttimes  discharged.  The 
last  witness,  yesterday,  Charles  Hel- 
ferty,  of  Jeddo,  president  of  the  Jeddo 
local  of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  con- 


Crom  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  Dec. 

Bcluded  a recital  of  the  unsatisfactory 
fworking  of  the  local  adjustment  plan 
at  the  Markle  & Co.  mines,  and  then 
was  asked  by  Atorney  McCarthy; 

“How  many  men  were  on  the  griev- 
ance committee  from  the  Markle  & Co. 
mines’” 

“Thirteen,”  he  answered. 

“How  many  of  these  men  are  now 
working  for  Markle  & Co.?” 

“Not  one.” 

The  miners’  attorneys  say  they  will 
continue  to  “vindicate”  the  independ- 
ent operators  for  a few  days  more. 
The  attorneys  for  the  big  companies  sit 
idly  by  and  evince  no  particular  inter- 
est in  the  proceedings.  In  fact,  Mr. 
Wolverton,  of  the  Reading,  and  Mr. 
Gowan,  of  the  Lehigh  Valley,  are  the 
only  out-of-town  counsel  for  the  com- 
panies in  attendance.  J.  H.  Torrey,  of 
this  city,  local  representative  of  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company,  did  a 
little  cross-examining  during  the  day, 
but  being  unacquainted  with  the  de- 
tails had  to  confine  himself  to  gener- 
alities, and  very  few  of  those. 

General  Wilson  Protested. 

Some  testimony  regarding  the  in- 
creased price  of  foodstuffs  was  being 
interlarded,  yesterday  afternoon,  to  ac- 
commodate a witness  who  wanted  to 
get  away,  and  Mr.  Burns,  of  counsel 
for  the  local  independent  operators,  in 
cross-examining  happened  to  refer  to 
the  president  as  “Teddy”  Roosevelt. 

General  Wilson  jumped  to  his  feet, 
and  in  tones  of  mixed  anger  and  sur- 
prise called  out; 

“Mr.  Chairman,  I most  vigorously 
protest  against  the  president  of  the 
United  States  being  referred  to  in  this 
manner  in  the  presence  of  this  com- 
mission.” 

“The  objection  is  well  taken,  General 
Wilson,”  said  Chairman  Gray  in  very 
icy  tones. 

Mr.  Burns  mumbled  something  about 
the  president  referring  to  himself  as 
“Teddy,”  and  the  incident  closed. 

At  the  opening  of  yesterday's  session. 
Chairman  Gray,  on  behalf  of  the  com- 
mission announced  that  it  desired  the 
companies  to  present  whatever  testi- 
mony in  the  way  of  statistics  they  may 
have  at  hand,  that  the  commission  may 
examine  it  and  determine  whether  or 
not  it  is  satisfactory,  and  if  not,  how 
It  is  to  be  supplemented  or  annexed.  It 


’•] 

is  time,  he  said,  the  commission  had 
gotten  down  to  an  examination  of  this 
sort  of  testimony  and  he  hoped  the 
companies  would  have  it  filed  without 
much  further  delay. 

Major  Warren  stated  that  the  Penn- 
sylvania and  Hillside  companies,  which 
he  represents  have  completed  some  of 
their  statistics  and  he  would  hand 
them  in  at  once.  He  did  this  at  the 
afternoon  session.  The  “some  of  the 
statistics”  prepared  by  these  two  com- 
panies made  a cylindrical  package  two 
feet  long  and  a foot  and  a half  in  cir- 
cumference. 

WoulcJ  Require  Two  Months. 

Mr.  Reynolds,  for  the  local  indepen- 
dent operators  stated  that  his  clients 
had  some  15,000  accounts  to  figure  on 
and  to  tabulate  the  statistics  in  the 
manner  suggested  by  the  commission 
on  Saturday  would  require  another  two 
months.  The  companies,  he  said,  had 
taken  averages  and  were  willing  to 
submit  their  pay  rolls  to  the  experts 
of  the  miners  to  have  the  averages  ver- 
ified. Not  only  were  there  general 
averages,  he  explained  but  the  averages 
of  every  man’s  wages.  The  commission 
on  Saturday,  asked  to  have  the  wages 
classified  instead  of  averaged,  that  is, 
tables  showing  how  many  men  earned 
less  than  .$10,  how  many  earned  less 
than  $9.00  and  so  on  down  the  scale.  To 
change  the  tabulations  now,  to  conform 
to  the  commissioners’  wishes,  Mr. 
Reynolds  averred  would  be  a stupend- 
ous task. 

Judge  Gray  said  the  companies 
might  put  in  what  statistics  they  have 
prepared,  the  commission  would  then 
suggest  what  more,  if  any,  information 
along  these  lines  was  desired. 

The  intention  of  the  miners  to  con- 
tinue the  examination  of  the  Markle  & 
Co.,  men  and  the  absence  of  the  Markle 
& Co.,  attorneys,  was  called  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  commission  by  Mr.  Tor- 
rey. Mr.  Dickson  was  ill  in  Philadel- 
phia, he  explained  and  Mr.  Bedford 
was  kept  away  by  pressing  business. 
In  view  of  this,  Mr.  Torrey  said,  it 
would  hardly  be  proper  to  examine  the 
Markle  & Co.  witnesses. 

Mr.  Darrow  protested  that  the  min- 
ers should  not  be  put  to  the  expense  of 
keeping  a lot  of  witness  here  because 
of  the  absence  of  lawyers,  and  insisted 
on  proceeding  with  the  programmed 


74 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


examinations.  Judge  Gray  wanted  to 
know  if  Mr.  Torrey  could  not  conduct 
the  cross-examinations  for  Markle  & 
Co.  Mr.  Torrey  said  he  was  not  ac- 
quainted with  the  conditions  in  that  re- 
gion, and  would  not  want  to  attempt 
it,  even  with  authority.  Judge  Gray 
advised  that  he  communicate  with  Mr. 
Bedford.  Mr.  Torrey  called  Mr.  Bed- 
ford by  ’phone  and  learned  that  it  was 
impossible  for  him  to  come  up.  Judge 
Gray  stated  that  the  hearings  were  in- 
terrupted enough  without  having  them 
prolonged  by  the  absence  of  lawyers, 
and  directed  that  the  examination  be 
proceeded  with. 

Cost  of  Living. 

Seven  witnesses  were  put  on  to  tel. 
more  about  the  conditions  at  Markle  & 
Co.’s  collieries  and  two  Scranton  men, 
J.  W.  Rittenhouse,  of  the  Retail  Groc- 
ers’ association  and  John  B.  Hughes,  of 
Armour  & Co.,  to  give  figures  regard- 
ing the  increased  cost  of  living  now 
as  compared  with  1900. 

The  first  witness  was  James  Gal- 
lagher, the  witty,  old  Irish  miner  who 
was  on  the  stand  Saturday  and  who, 
it  will  be  remembered,  was  “half-killed 
twice.’’  He  again  kept  the  assemblage 
laughing  almost  continuously  by  his 
ready  and  witty  answers.  He  was  es- 
pecially funny  because  it  was  all  un- 
conscious on  his  part.  He  was  very 
serious  as  far  as  his  own  view  of  the 
matter  was  concerned. 

To  Mr.  Harrow’s  question  as  to  the 
burial  fund  provided  by  Markle  & Co., 
the  witness  explained  that  it  was  cus- 
tomary in  the  old  days,  for  the  mine  to 
stop  work  for  the  day  when  a man  was 
killed.  Once  a poor  fellow  who  was 
crushed  to  death  had  no  money  with 
which  his  funeral  expenses  might  be 
paid  and  the  men  made  up  a collection 
to  defray  the  expense.  They  then  de- 
cided to  establish  a burial  fund  and 
asked  George  Markle  to  contribute 
something  to  it.  Mr.  Markle  agreed  to 
donate  $50  to  the  expense  of  burying 
each  man  who  was  killed,  providing 
not  more  than  eight  men  quit  work  on 
the  day  of  the  killing.  This  was  satis- 
factory and  continued  in  operation  for 
several  years,  when  one  day  a man 
was  terribly  crushed  beneath  a fall  and 
the  other  men  all  went  out  for  the  day. 

The  company  then  reduced  its  contri- 
bution to  the  burial  fund  to  $25,  and  it 
remained  at  this  figure  until  four  and 
a half  years  ago,  when  it  was  put  back 
at  $50. 

Size  of  Mine  Car. 

The  witness  also  told  of  bogus  min- 
ers’ certificates  having  been  issued  and 
how  an  Hungarian  who  claimed  to 
have  bought  a certificate  for  $1  was 
killed  one  day  by  firing  a charge  where 
the  roof  was  bad,  after  being  warned 
that  he  was  risking  his  life. 

The  witness  also  told  of  how  the  size 
of  the  mine  car  has  grown  continually 
and  that  he  never  saw  a mine  inspec- 
tor about  a breast  or  working  unless  it 
was  after  an  accident  of  a serious  na- 
ture had  taken  place. 


Mr.  Reynolds  took  the  witness  for 
cross-examination. 

“You  stated  a specific  instance,”  be- 
gan Mr.  Reynolds,  “of  accident  result- 
ing in  death  being  attributable  to  per- 
sonal ignorance  on  the  part  of  the 
miner.  Now,  I want  to  ask — ” 

“I  stated  what?”  interrupted  Mr. 
Gallagher. 

“I  say  you  told  of  a miner  losing  his 
life  because  of  ignorance — ” 

“I  stated  nothing  of  the  kind.  What 
T said  was  that  he  didn’t  know.” 

At  which  the  ripple  of  laughter,  that 
almost  continuously  accompanied  Mr. 
Gallagher’s  story,  swelled  into  a mighty 
wave. 

Regarding  the  issuance  of  miners' 
certificates  to  incompetent  miners,  as 
testified  to  by  the  witness  on  direct 
examination,  Mr.  Reynolds  adduced  the 
fact  that  the  men  who  issued  them 
were  miners. 

The  ^witness  admitted  that  when  the 
size  of  the  car  was  increased,  “just 
after  Hayes’  election,”  the  price  was 
increased,  but  he  maintained  that  the 
size  has  been  gradually  but  surely 
growing  without  any  corresponding  in- 
crease in  wages.  He  knew  this,  be- 
cause when  the  new  car  was  first  in- 
troduced he  could  barely  put  a ten- 
foot  plank  in  it,  while  now  it  will  easily 
contain  an  eleven-foot  plank. 

“Now,  in  the  Fifth  district,  where 
you  work — ” Mr.  Reynolds  started  to 
say. 

“Fifth?  You  mean  Seventh,”  inter- 
rupted the  witness. 

“No,  the  Fifth,”  insisted  the  lawyer. 

“I  work  in  the  Seventh  district,”  de- 
clared the  witness  with  equal  insist- 
ence. 

Attorney  McCarthy  explained:  “The 

witness  is  referring  to  the  United  Mine 
Workers’  Seventh  district.” 

“Oh,  I see,”  said  Mr.  Reynolds.  “I 
mean  the  Fifth  Inspection  district.” 

“Aw!  I don’t  know  anything  about 
that,  sure,”  declared  Mr.  Gallagher. 

Cause  of  Accidents. 

Mr.  Reynolds  read  from  a report  of 
the  chief  of  the  bureau  of  mines  in 
which  Chief  Roderick  says  that  63  per 
cent,  of  the  accidents  in  anthracite 
mines  are  attributable  to  imprudence, 
neglect  or  carelessness  on  the  part  of 
the  victim.  He  asked  the  witness  if  he 
concurred  in  this  opinion.  Mr.  Galla- 
gher replied  that  he  would  not  agree 
with  this  opinion.  He  would  admit  that 
a good  per  centage  of  accidents  were 
not  altogether  unavoidable,  but  they 
were  due  to  lack  of  knowledge  on  the 
part  of  the  victim,  rather  than  to  care- 
lessness or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Reynolds  asked  if  it  was  not 
dangerous  to  carry  a “brattice”  in  a 
“dog  hole,”  and  if  it  was  not  a com- 
mon thing  for  miners  to  do  this.  The 
witness  averred  that  it  could  be  done 
safely. 

Frank  Rea,  of  Jeddo,  who  was  on  the 
stand  Saturday  at  adjournment,  was 
also  re-called  and  examined  by  Mr. 
McCarthy.  He  explained  how  it  was 
possible  to  safely  “carry  a brattice  in 


a dog  hole,”  to  contradict  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds’ contention  that  this  was  danger- 
ous, and  then  proceeded  to  deny  that 
60  per  cent,  of  the  accidents  in  mines 
are  due  to  negligence,  carelessness  or 
ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  miner,  as 
claimed  by  the  chief  of  the  bureau  of 
mines.  As  an  indication  that  the  mine 
car  has  expansive  tendencies,  he  told 
that  once  when  a new  style  of  car  was 
introduced  it  was  necessary  to  widen 
the  roads  by  cutting  away  timbers  to 
let  it  through. 

The  witness  next  told  that  he  was 
one  of  the  thirteen  men  at  the  Jeddo 
mine  whom  Markle  & Co.  refused  to 
reinstate.  He  is  president  of  the  Jeddo 
local  and  wras  a member  of  the  joint  ar- 
bitration committee.  He  denied  having 
been  indicted  for  any  crime  or  of 
having  used  any  physical  force  to  pre- 
vent anyone  from  going  to  work. 

He  Was  Evicted. 

Paul  Dunleavy,  another  Jeddo  em- 
ploye of  Markle  & Co.,  told  of  being 
evicted  from  a company  house  on  No- 
vember 6.  He  knew  of  no  reason  for 
his  eviction  other  than  that  he  was 
treasurer  of  the  local.  The  company 
refused  him  re-employment.  Mr.  Mar- 
kle told  him  he  could  never  work  for 
that  company  again.  The  witness  told 
that  he.  his  wife,  seven  children  and 
his  wife’s  parents,  eleven  in  all,  lived  in 
four  rooms.  When  the  sheriff  was 
about  to  evict  him,  the  witness  told 
him  of  the  old  folks  being  invalids  and 
one  of  them,  his  father-in-law,  very  ill 
in  bed,  and  asked  him  to  give  him  until 
the  next  day  to  find  a house.  Sheriff 
Jacobs  said  he  would  see  about  it.  The 
sheriff  went  away,  but  returned  shortly 
and  said:  “Paul,  you’ll  have  to  get  out 

in  five  minutes.”  The  sheriff  and  his 
deputies  carried  out  the  furniture  and 
put  it  in  the  street.  The  witness  got 
shelter  for  his  wife’s  parents  in  the 
home  of  the  next-door  neighbor.  The 
rest  of  the  family  went  to  other  friends’ 
houses. 

A number  of  the  set  questions  being 
propounded  by  the  miners’  side  were 
then  put  to  the  witness.  His  average 
earnings  were  $450  a year:  the  air  is 
very  poor  in  his  working  place;  he 
never  saw  a mine  inspector  in  his  life; 
a man  considered  himself  lucky  if  he 
could  pass  a day  in  the  mine  without 
receiving  a cut  on  the  hands  or  face. 

On  one  of  the  pay  checks  he  fur- 
nished for  testimony.  Judge  Gray  saw 
a charge  of  seventy-five  cents  for  doc- 
tor’s fee.  The  judge  expressed  surprise 
at  learning  that  every  married  man 
pays  seventy-five  cents  and  every 
single  man  over  21  years  of  age  fifty 
cents  a month  to  pay  for  the  company 
doctor.  The  judge  figured  that  $1,000  a 
month  would  be  collected  from  the 
company’s  3,000  employes.  Attorney 
McCarthy  explained  that  it  is  neces- 
sary to  have  from  five  to  seven  doc- 
tors. Judge  Gray  remarked  that  the 
company  doctor  system  might  be  a 
good  thing  if  properly  managed. 


Medicine  and  Nurses. 

On  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Torrey, 
the  witness  admitted  that  the  company 
furnishes  for  this  doctor’s  fee,  in  addi- 
tion to  medical  attendance,  medicine 
and  professional  nurses.  Mr.  Torrey 
also  brought  out  that  since  the  com- 
pany store  went  on  a cash  basis  the 
witness  went  to  trade  in  another  place 
where  he  could  get  credit. 

Mr.  Reynolds  asked  the  witness  if  he 
would  be  surprised  to  know  that  35  per 
cent,  of  the  material  that  comes  from 
the  mine  goes  to  the  dump,  and  that 
ten  per  cent  of  this  loss  is  chargeable 
to  negligent  loading  on  the  part  of  the 
miner.  The  witness  did  not  think  it 
was  that  high. 

Henry  Shovelin,  another  of  the  thir- 
teen Jeddo  men  refused  reemployment 
by  Markle  & Co.,  told  of  being  evicted 
and  refused  re-employment.  He  sup- 
posed this  resulted  from  his  having 
taken  a prominent  part  in  union  affairs 
as  a member  of  the  grievance  com- 
mittee of  his  local. 

The  witness  was  then  examined  at 
some  length  regarding  the  adustment 
of  local  grievances  between  the  com- 
pany and  employes,  since  the  close 
of  the  1900  strike.  This  was  in  line 
with  the  suggestion  of  the  commission, 
as  contained  in  Commissioner  Watkins’ 
communication  to  Mr.  Darrow,  Satur- 
day. The  witness  said  the  grievance 
committee  of  the  miners  often  went  to 
the  company  officials  with  complaints 
but  only  once  did  they  get  any  satis- 
faction. That  was  in  the  case  of  a 
miner  who  was  discharged  for  refusing 
to  take  a bad  place.  After  three 
month's  effort  the  committee  succeeded 
in  having  him  reinstated  and  given  a 
better  place. 

To  Invite  Inspectors. 

Just  before  the  noon  adjournment 
Judge  Gray  brought  up  the  matter  of 
inviting  mine  inspectors  to  come  be- 
fore the  commission  and  give  their  side 
of  the  story  about  their  alleged  failure 
to  visit  workings  and  invariable  cus- 
tom of  being  accompanied  by  a mine 
boss  when  making  inspection  tours.  Mr. 
Torrey  suggested  that  it  would  be  well 
to  wait  till  the  miners  concluded  their 
testimony  that  it  might  be  known 
what  inspectors  to  summon.  He  also 
advised  that  the  commission  extend  the 
invitation  direct  to  the  inspectors  in- 
stead of  through  the  counsel  of  one  side 
or  the  other,  as  it  might  be  embarras- 
sing to  an  inspector  to  go  on  the  sta.nd 
as  the  witness  of  either  the  companies 
or  the  miners.  Judge  Gray  rejoined 
that  if  the  attorneys  would  agree  on 
what  inspectors  would  give  testimony 
pertinent  to  the  company,  the  commis- 
sion would  invite  them.  • “We  will  have 
them  called  as  our  witnesses,”  said  the 
Judge. 

The  hearing  was  resumed  in  the  af- 
ternoon with  Mr.  Shovelin  still  under 
direct  examination  by  Mr.  McCarthy. 

The  witness  told  that  the  Jedcfo  car 
contains  158  8-9  cubic  feet.  A ton  of 
coal  measures  40  cubic  feet,  plus  the 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

required  topping.  Roughly  speaking 
there  are  more  than  three  tons  of  coal 
in  a car.  The  company  allows  the  min- 
er 2 3-4  tons  per  car.  It  was  contend- 
ed by  the  witness  that  there  should  not 
be  any  docking,  as  allowance  is  made 
in  the  size  of  the  car  for  impurities. 
Under  the  present  system,  the  witness 
averred,  the  miner  is  docked  twice. 

A discussion  of  the  powder  question 
was  engendered  by  the  statement  of 
the  witness  that  Markle  & Co.,  did  not 
follow  the  general  plan  of  applying  the 
ten  per  cent,  increase  in  1900,  but  in- 
stead gave  the  men  2 1-2  per  cent  in- 
crease in  wages  and  made  the  reduc- 
tion in  the  price  of  powder  from  $2.70 
to  $1.50  a keg  represent  7 1-2  per  cent, 
increase.  If  a miner  does  not  use  the 
average  amount  of  powder  he  does  not 
get  the  full  benefit  of  the  ten  per  cent, 
increase. 

Was  News  to  Him. 

Judge  Gray  said  it  was  news  to  him 
to  learn  the  reduction  of  powder  en- 
tered into  the  increase  in  wages.  He 
was  under  the  impression  that  the  men 
got  a ten  per  cent,  increase  in  wages 
in  addition  to  a decrease  in  cost  of 
powder. 

The  witness  admitted  in  response  to 
questions  by  Mr.  Torrey  that  the  griev- 
ance committee  never  made  but  one 
visit  to  the  company.  On  direct  ex- 
amination the  witness  declared  that  it 
was  customary  for  the  company  to  col- 
lect out  of  the  first  month’s  wages  af- 
ter a suspension,  all  that  was  owing  for 
back  rent.  Mr.  Torrey  asked  him  if  it 
was  not  true  that  the  company,  under 
such  circumstances,  collected  back  rent 
by  charging  an  extra  half  month’s 
rent  each  month  after  the  suspension 
until  the  back  rent  was  paid.  The 
witness  could  not  give  a single  instance 
in  which  this  had  not  been  done. 

At  this  juncture  the  commissioners 
undertook  to  get  an  understanding  of 
the  much  discussed  and  very  compli- 
cated “powder  question.” 

The  effort  was  projected  by  Commis- 
sioner Clark’s  action  in  recalling  Paul 
Dunleavy  to  explain  some  seemingly 
unexplicable  items  in  the  due  bills  or 
checks  he  had  offered  when  he  was  on 
the  stand  earlier  in  the  day. 

It  was  all  clear  enough  to  the  wit- 
ness, but  he  could  not  appreciate  the 
commissioner’s  difficulty,  and  conse- 
quently they  could  not  make  any  con- 
siderable headway.  Attorney  McCarthy 
sought  to  explain  but  his  effort  at 
elucidating  the  intricate  problem 
proved  fruitless. 

“Is  there  any  one  who  can  explain  it 
to  us?”  finally  Judge  Gray  called  out 
in  desperation.  This,  that  and  the 
other  lawyer  took  a turn  at  attempt- 
ing to  make  the  thing  clear  to  the  com- 
missioners, but  still  the  commission 
was  in  the  dark.- 

Old  man  Gallagher  sitting  in  a far 
corner  of  the  room  stood  up. 

“Maybe  Mr.  Gallagher  can  explain 
it,”  said  Mr.  Darrow.  At  this  there  was 
loud  and  some  derisive  laughter. 


75 

“Maybe  I can  explain  it”  said  the  old 
gray-haired  miner,  not  at  all  non- 
plussed by  the  greeting  he  received. 

He  Explained  It. 

“It’s  this  way,”  said  he  and  he  went 
on  to  explain  briefly  and  concisely  by 
an  illustration. 

“Good,”  said  Judge  Gray.  "That’s 
what  we  want  to  know.”  The  other 
commissioners  nodded  assent  to  the 
chairman’s  enthusiastic  declaration. 

The  room  fairly  rang  with  applause, 
which  Judge  Gray  was  slow  to  check. 

President  Crawford,  of  the  People’s 
Coal  Company  had  been  figuring  on 
one  of  the  due  bills  with  a view  of 
making  exactly  the  same  illustration 
that  the  old  miner  had  just  given. 
When  the  applause  and  laughter  sub- 
sided Mr.  Crawford  arose  and  after 
stating  that  Mr.  Gallagher  had  given 
the  proper  explanation,  proceeded  to 
present  his  illustration  to  further  elu- 
cidate the  difficulty. 

The  difficulty  grew,  primarily,  out  of 
the  action  of  Markle  & Co.,  in  literally 
following  the  provisions  of  the  notice 
passed  at  the  end  of  the  1900  strike,  in 
which  it  was  specified  that  the  ten  per 
cent,  increase  to  contract  miners  would 
be  made  up  out  of  a 2 1-2  per  cent,  in- 
crease in  the  price  per  car  and  7 1-2 
per  cent  in  a decrease  in  the  cost  of 
powder.  It  was  figured  by  the  com- 
panies and  agreed  to  by  the  miners,  or 
at  least  silently  acquiesced  in,  that  a 
reduction  in  the  price  of  powder  of 
from  $2.70  to  $1.50  per  keg  would  repre- 
sent a decrease  in  the  miners’  working 
expenses  of  7 1-2  per  cent.  All  except 
one  or  two  companies  let  it  go  at  that. 
The  Markles,  however,  calculated  that 
this  meant  a litttle  more  than  a 10  per 
cent  raise  and  figured  each  man’s  ac- 
count at  the  end  of  two  weeks,  so  as 
to  show  exactly  what  reduction  in 
working  expenses  the  reduction  in 
powder  amounted  to.  If  it  amounted 
to  more  than  7 1-2  per  cent,  the  excess 
was  charged  back  on  the  due  bill. 

His  Explanation. 

Here  was  old  man  Gallagher’s  ex- 
planation: If  a miner’s  gross  earnings 

were  $50  he  was  entitled  to  a 10  per 
cent  raise,  or  $5.  He  used  four  kegs 
of  powder.  The  reduction  in  powder 
was  $1.20  a keg.  The  four  kegs  repre- 
sented a reduction  in  his  working  ex- 
penses of  $4.80.  The  company  would 
add  2 1-2  per  cent  of  a flat  increase  to 
the  $50,  which  would  be  $1.25.  The  $4.80 
decrease  in  working  expenses  plus  the 
$1.25  increase  in  wages,  plus  the  $50 
gross  earnings  would  give  him  $56.25.  A 
10  per  cent  increase  would  entitle  him 
to  only  $55.  Therefore  the  company 
would  charge  back  on  his  due  bill  the 
sum  of  $1.25. 

Mr.  Crawford  figured  on  $60  as  earn- 
ings and  five  kegs  of  powder,  with  the 
price  reduced  from  $2.75  (which  was  the 
old  charge  in  some  places),  to  $1.50  and 
showed  that  in  this  case  the  miner 
would  be  getting  $6.25  instead  of  $6  (or 
10  per  cent  of  $60),  and  would  have  25 
cents  charged  back  to  him. 


76 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Mr.  McCarthy  stated  that  the  miners 
have  an  expert  who  will  go  on  the 
stand  later  and  show  the  details  of  the 
working  of  this  plan. 

J.  W.  Rittenhouse,  former  state  secre- 
tary of  the  Retail  Grocers’  association, 
and  at  present  state  organizer,  was 
next  called  to  the  stand  and  examined 
by  Attorney  John  J.  Murphy  with  a 
view  of  showing  that  the  increased 
price  in  food  stuff  since  1900  more  than 
eats  up  the  10  per  cent  increase  in 
wages. 

Price  of  Groceries. 

Mr.  Rittenhouse  presented  the  fol- 
lowing list  of  groceries  as  sold  by  re- 
tail merchants  in  this  region  in  the 


years  1900,  1901,  1902: 

December,  1900. 

Butter  25c 

Eggs  20c 

Flour  $4.25-$5.00 

Sugar,  20-22  pounds  for $1.00 

Cheese  15c 

Potatoes  65c 

Salt  Bacon  11c 

Smoked  bacon  1214c 

California  ham  7%c 

Ham  lO^c-llc 

Lard  10c 

Onions,  per  peck  20c 

Tomatoes,  standard,  3 cans  25c 

Canned  corn,  3 cans  2oc 

Marrow  beans,  3 quarts  25c 

Feed,  per  cwt  1.00 

Meal,  per  cwt  $1.00 

Corn,  per  cwt  $1.00 

December,  1901. 

Butter  25c 

Eggs  20c 

Flour  $4.25-$5.00 

Sugar,  20-22  pounds  for $1.00 

Cheese  15c 

Potatoes  90c 

Salt  bacon  12c 

Smoked  bacon  15c 

California  ham  9c 

Ham  12!£c-15c 

Lard  12c 

Onions,  per  peck  35c 

Tomatoes,  standard,  per  can 10-12%c 

Canned  corn,  3 cans  25c 

Marrow  beans,  3 quarts  25c 

Feed,  per  cwt  $1.50 

Meal,  per  cwt  $1.50 

Corn,  per  cwt  $1.50 

December,.  1902. 

Butter  28c-34c 

Eggs  24c-30c 

Flour  $4.25-$5.O0 

Sugar,  20-22  pounds  for $1.00 

Cheese  ' 16c-17c. 

Potatoes  75c-80c 

Salt  bacon  16c-19c 

Smoked  bacon  18c-20c 

California  ham  1214c-15c 

Ham  16c-18c 

Lard  14c-16c 

Onions,  per  peck  35c 

Tomatoes,  standard,  per  can  1214C-15C 

Marow  beans,  per  quart  10c 

Feed,  per  cwt  $1.50 


Meal,  per  cwt  $1.50 

Corn,  per  cwt  $1.50 


The  increase  or  decrease  per  cent,  in 
the  cost  of  the  different  articles  w-as 
shown  by  Mr.  Rittenhouse  to  be  as  fol- 
lows, taking  the  years  1900  and  1902  for 
comparison: 

Butter  12  to  36  per  cent.  inc. 

Eggs  20  to  40  per  cent.  inc. 

Flour  1 per  cent.  dec. 

Sugar  1 per  cent.  dec. 

Cheese  8 per  cent.  inc. 

Salt  bacon  48  to  75  per  cent.  inc. 

Smoked  bacon  44  to  60  per  cent.  inc. 

Potatoes  15  to  23  per  cent.  inc. 

Shoulders  65  per  cent.  inc. 

Hams  58  to  78  per  cent.  inc. 

Lard  40  to  60  per  cent.  inc. 

Onions  17  per  cent.  inc. 

Marrow  beans  17  per  cent.  inc. 

Meal  and  corn  50  per  cent.  inc. 

Attorney  Murphy  had  had  the  wit- 
ness- make  a calculation  to  show  how 
much  more  an  average  monthly  order 
of  groceries  and  provisions  would  cost 
a typical  miners’  family  of  five  per- 
sons, which  kept  chickens  and  either  a 
pig  or  a cow.  The  witness  read  a list 
of  goods  that  twenty-two  years’  ex- 
perience had  taught  him  would  about 
meet  the  requirements  of  such  a house- 
hold, and  showed  by  applying  the  cost 
prices  for  the  three  years  that  in  1900 
the  order  would  cost  $17.61;  in  1901, 
$20.29,  and  in  1902,  $22.94.  The  increase 
of  1902  over  1900  was  30  per  cent. 

Absolute  necessities  mostly  used  by- 
miners,  particularly  smoked  and  salt 
meats,  the  witness  said,  had  steadily 
increased  in  cost  since  1900  and  more 
perceptibly  during  the  past  year.  In 
1900,  previous  to  the  strike,  the  witness 
said  miners  had  smaller  balances  on 
their  store  books  than  in  1902,  just 
previous  to  the  last  strike.  In  other 
words,  they  owed  less  to  their  store- 
keeper before  the  10  per  cent,  raise, 
when  goods  were  cheap,  than  they  did 
after  the  10  per  cent,  raise,  when  prices 
went  up.  Taking  all  kinds  of  house- 
hold necessities,  groceries,  provisions, 
domestic  articles,  like  soap,  brushes, 
blacking  and  so  on,  Mr.  Rittenhouse 
said  the  increase  in  cost  in  1902,  as 
compared  with  1900,  would  average  30 
per  cent. 

The  witness  got  his  figures  from  vari- 
ous members  of  the  retailers’  associa- 
tion scattered  throughout  this  region. 
He  consulted  no  less  than  twenty-five 
merchants  in  making  up  the  tables. 
He  avoided  company  stores  and  cash 
stores  in  securing  prices,  as  the  one, 
he  said,  is  a little  high  and  the  other 
a little  low  at  different  times  on  dif- 
ferent articles. 

Mr.  Burns,  on  cross-examination, 
sought  to  show  that  the  failure  of  last 


year’s  corn  crop  caused  high  prices  in 
foodstuffs,  including  meats,  and  that 
this  year’s  big  yield  will  materially  re- 
duce prices  as  soon  as  it  is  marketed. 
The  witness  declined  to  concur  in  this 
proposition,  saying  he  had  not  come  to 
make  prophecies,  but  give  facts. 

“If  miners’  wages  are  to  be  regulated 
by  the  fluctuations  of  prices  of  goods,” 
remarked  Mr.  Burns,  “the  commission 
should  meet  every  fall.” 

John  B.  Hughes,  Scranton  manager 
for  Armour  & Co.,  gave  testimony  re- 
garding the  increased  cost  of  meats. 
He  was  questioned  by  Mr.  Murphy. 

Five  times  a year,  in  January,  April, 
July,  October  and  December,  prices 
were  taken  on  each  of  the  principal 
articles  sold  by  the  company. 


The  per  cent,  increase  on  meats  for 
the  one  year  over  the  preceding  year 
was  given,  as  follows: 


1901. 

1902. 

Pork  

. . . . 14  1-10 

25 

Beef 

. . . . 1 6-10 

S 4-10 

Smoked  Hams  

. . . . 9 1-10 

17  8-10 

Smoked  bacon  

. . . . 10  1-10 

21  2-10 

Lard 

. . . . 29  1-10 

46  5-10 

Sausage  

....  51 

20  7-10 

There  was  a decrease  in  the  price  of 
canned  meats  of  4 5-10  per  cent,  in  1901, 
as  compared  with  1900.  and  6 5-10  in 
1902,  as  compared  with  1901.  There  was 
an  average  increase  in  meats  of  11  5-10 
per  cent,  in  1901,  as  compared  with  1900, 
and  of  23  2-10  per  cent,  in  1902,  as  com- 
pared with  1901. 

Mr.  Burns  unsuccessfully'  tried  to  get 
the  witness  to  admit  that  shortage  of 
the  corn  crop  was  responsible  for  the 
rise  in  meats. 

Mr.  Burns  was  equally  unsuccessful 
in  an  effort  to  get  the  witness  to  admit 
that  the  high  price  of  meats  was  un- 
natural and  the  result  of  a beef  trust. 

“Haven’t  you  read  what  Teddy  Roose- 
velt has  had  to  say  about  trusts?” 
asked  Mr.  Burns.  This  provoked  the 
indignation  of  General  Wilson,  as  de- 
scribed above. 

Mrs.  Anna  Chippie  and  Mrs.  Mary 
Roma,  who  were  widowed  the  same  day- 
last  August  byr  a fall  of  roof,  told  of 
Markle  & Co.  offering  them  six  months’ 
coal  and  rent  free  if  they  would  sign 
papers  agreeing  not  to  sue  for  dam- 
ages, and  of  the  company-  keeping  rent 
and  coal,  including  back  debts  of  their 
husbands,  out  of  their  little  boy’s  earn- 
ings when  they  refused. 

Charles  Helferty,  president  of  the 
Jeddo  local,  was  the  last  witness  of  the 
day.  It  was  he  who  told  that  of  the 
thirteen  men  who  were  on  the  stand- 
ing committee  on  grievances  at  Markle 
& Co.’s  mines,  not  one  was  re-employed 
and  every-  one  of  them  was  evicted  from 
the  company’s  houses. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


77 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Pec.  9. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec  lO] 


What  can  bb  accomplished  by  cross- 
examination  in  the  way  of  qualifying 
testimony  the  miners  are  putting  before 
the  str.ke  commission  was  evidenced 
yesterday,  when  the  attack  on  G.  B. 
Markle  & Co.  was  concluded  and  at- 
tention turned  to  companies  whose 
lawyers  are  present  at  the  hearings. 

During  the  past  three  days  of  the  ses- 
sion the  miners  have  had  free  rein  in 
the  assault  on  Markle  & Co.,  because 
the  company’s  attorneys  absented 
themselves,  and  as  the  miners  are  par- 
ticularly anxious,  just  now,  to  put  the 
independents,  and  especially  the  leaders 
of  the  independents,  in  as  bad  a light 
as  possible,  because  of  their  demand 
for  a continuance  of  the  hearings  that 
they  might  be  vindicated,  it  can  be 
taken  as  a matter  of  course  that  they 
were  merciless  in  their  onslaught. 
Stories  reflecting  even  on  the  company 
officials’  humanity  stand  on  the  record 
without  challenge  or  qualification. 

When,  however,  it  came  to  attacking 
the  big  companies,  their  lawyers  and 
officials  standing  ready  to  repulse  the 
attack,  there  was  a different  story  to 
tell.  By  admissions  adduced  on  cross- 
examination,  practically  every  bit  of 
testimony  put  forward  was  discounted 
to  such  an  extent  that  it  was  worse 
than  worthless. 

Miners  went  on  the  stand  to  allege 
they  were  being  blacklisted  by  the  D. 
& H.,  Pennsylvania  or  Lehigh  Valley 
companies.  Before  the  cross-examiners 
finished  with  them,  it  would  be  shown 
that  their  allegations  had  no  foundation 
in  fact. 

One  Instance. 

For  instance,  P.  H.  McDonald,  a one- 
armed  youth,  who  was  occupying  a sort 
of  “pension”  job  with  the  Temple  com- 
pany, before  the  strike  claimed  he  was 
refused  re-employment  on  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  strike.  Attorney  Everett 
Warren  on  cross-examination,  got  him 
to  reluctantly  admit  that  the  company 
told  him  there  was  another  man  in  his 
place  whom  they  could  not,  in  honor, 
discharge,  but  that  if  he  would  take 
another  job,  paying  reduced  wages,  the 
company  would  do  better  by  him  at  the 
very  first  opportunity.  There  were  ten 
different  instances  of  practically  the 
same  thing. 

The  companies’  counsel  are  still  wait- 
ing anxiously  for  the  district  presi- 
dents of  the  mine  workers  to  be  put  on 
the  stand.  It  was  stated  right  along 
by  the  miners’  representatives  until  the 
hearings  were  resumed  after  the  recess 
that  District  President  T.  D.  Nicholls.  of 
the  Scranton  district,  would  be  the  next 
witness  after  President  Mitchell  and  Dr. 
Roberts.  Mr.  Nicholls  is  still  wanting 
in  the  witness  stand,  and  as  yet  no  dis- 
trict officer  of  the  union  has  been  called. 
National  Board  Member  P.  J.  Gallagher 
was  called  yesterday  to  tell  of  general 
conditions  at  the  Markle  & Co.  mines 


and  as  soon  as  he  was  turned  over  for 
cross-examination,  Attorney  J.  H.  Tor- 
rey,  of  counsel  for  the  Delaware  & Hud- 
son company,  started  in  to  question 
him  about  the  knowledge  the  district 
headquarters  had  of  strike  violence. 
The  witness  skillfully  evaded  a discus- 
sion of  this  subject  by  explaining  he 
was  a national  and  not  a district  officer. 

It  is  understood  the  companies  are 
particularly  desirous  of  having  District 
President  Nicholls  on  the  stand  that 
they  may  question  him  regarding  the 
connection  of  the  district  headquarters 
attaches  with  some  certain  cases  of 
violation  of  law  during  the  strike. 

Harrowing  Story. 

Not  only  sad,  but  really  harrowing 
was  the  story  told  at  the  morning  ses- 
sion by  Henry  Coll,  one  of  the  “thir- 
teen” Markle  company  men,  of  Jeddo, 
who  were  evicted  from  their  homes 
during  the  strike  and  refused  re-em- 
ployment at  its  close.  His  only  offense 
he  knew  of  “as  God  is  my  judge,”  was 
That  he  served  on  the  union’s  relief 
committee.  If  he  committed  any  other 
offense  it  is  yet  to-  be  shown,  as  Markle 
& Co.  had  no  representative  at  the 
hearing  to  disclose  it. 

Coil’s  case  was  made  immediately  pa- 
thetic because  of  the  fact  that  it  was 
only  yesterday  he  buried  his  wife.  She 
died,  as  he  averred  and  no  one  disput- 
ed, from  exposure  resulting  from  the 
eviction.  His  mother-in-law,  a blind 
woman  more  than  100  years  of  age,  who 
was  evicted  with  him,  and  who  has 
been  gradually  dying  ever  since,  re- 
ceived the  last  sacraments  of  her 
church  Monday  night.  He  himself  is 
nearly  60  years  of  age  and  badly  crip- 
pled. 

“There  isn’t  a whole  bone  in  my 
body  except  my  neck,”  he  told  the 
commission,  in  response  to  a question 
from  Mr.  Darrow  as  to  whether  or  not 
he  had  ever  been  hurt  in  the  mines. 
One  of  his  eyes  is  gone,  his  left  leg  is 
stiffened,  his  right  arm  crooked,  and  a 
number  of  his  ribs  bent  and  twist  d 
from  fractures.  Once  his  skull  was 
fractured  and  another  time  he  received 
a gash  on  the  head  which  required 
fourteen  stitches  to  close. 

Ten  years  ago  he  was  caught  under 
a fall  of  rock  and  so  badly  crushed  that 
he  was  in  a hospital  two  years.  When 
he  came  out,  his  fellow  workmen  sub- 
scribed a purse  of  $167  to  help  support 
him  until  he  could  discard  his  crutches 
and  go  to  work.  The  money  was  col- 
lected at  the  company’s  offioe,  the 
workmen  having  authorized  the  pay- 
master to  keep  the  amount  of  their 
subscriptions  out  of  their  pay.  Super- 
intendent Smith  added  $50  to  the  fund. 
Coll  went  to  get  the  money,  but  the 
company  would  give  him  only  $25.  The 
rest  of  it  was  retained  to  be  applied  on 


his  bill  for  rent  of  a company  house 
and  coal  used  by  his  family  while  he 
was  in  the  hospital. 

Coil’s  FamJ  v. 

His  family  consisted  of  himself  and 
wife,  his  wife’s  centenarian  mother, 
four  small  children  of  his  own,  and  a 
little  girl  whom  he  adopted  when  she 
was  eight  weeks  old,  the  little  one’s 
father  having  died  the  day  her  mother 
was  buried.  James  Gallagher,  the 
witty  old  Irishman,  who  was  on  the 
stand  the  day  before,  took  the  other  in- 
fant orphan  into  his  family.  The  wit- 
ness has  one  grown  up  son,  who  be- 
came insane  during  the  strike,  and  is 
now  in  the  Luzerne  county  asylum,  at 
Retreat. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  strike,  the 
witness  received  notice  to  quit  the 
company’s  house.  He  owed  for  rent 
accumulated  during  the  strike,  but  no 
demand  was  made  on  him  for  it.  Early 
on  the  morning  of  the  sixth  day,  before 
the  family  was  out  of  bed,  Sheriff 
Jacobs  and  his  deputies  came  to  the 
house  and  ordered  them  out.  Coll  did 
not  expect  an  eviction,  thinking,  as  he 
put  it,  that  the  notice  was  “only  a 
bluff.”  He  pleaded  with  the  sheriff 
not  to  turn  him  out,  as  his  wife  was  ill 
of  bronchitis  and  his  mother-in-law 
unable  to  move.  The  sheriff  said  he 
was  sorry,  but  he  had  to  do  his  duty. 

Coll  pleaded  with  him  to  give  him 
until  the  next  day,  that  he  might  have 
time  to  get  another  house  and  move 
his  sick  wife  and  mother-in-law.  It 
was  impossible  to  get  another  house  in 
Jeddo,  as  the  company  owned  them  all. 
and  he  did  not  want  to  put  the  neigh- 
bors under  the  ban  of  the  company’s 
displeasure  by  permitting  them  to  take 
him  in.  At  all  events,  there  was  a 
cold,  drizzling  rain  falling,  and  if  the 
two  invalid  women  were  forced  out  in 
it  the  consequences  might  be  serious. 

The  sheriff  said  he  would  see  Mr. 
Markle  and  endeavor  to  have  him  agree 
to  allow  him  to  remain  until  noon.  In 
a very  short  time  the  sheriff  returned 
and  said:  “You  will  have  to  get  out  in 

five  minutes  or  we  will  be  forced  to  put 
you  out.” 

Tne  Eviction. 

Coll,  half-distracted,  told  the  sheriff 
to  go  ahead  and  put  him  out.  Two 
deputies  carried  the  old  woman  out  of 
her  bed  and  across  the  road  into  an- 
other house.  Mrs.  Coll  dressed  herself 
and  went  into  the  street,  where  she 
spent  a couple  of  hours  packing  her 
household  goods  in  boxes  and  barrels 
to  save  them  from  the  rain.  Coll  hur- 
ried off  to  Hazleton  and  late  in  the  day 
succeeded  in  getting  another  house.  At 
11  o’clock  that  night  they  finished 
moving  and  went  to  bed.  There  was 
no  fire  in  the  house,  everything  was 


78 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


wet  from  the  rain,  and  in  the  morning 
all  of  them  had  colds.  Mrs.  Coll  was 
choked  up  so  that  she  could  not  talk. 
She  wanted  to  go  to  the  hospital,  but 
Coll  believed  that  as  long  as  he  was  no 
longer  employed  as  a miner  he  could 
not  get  his  wife  into  the  miners’  hos- 
pital, and  instead  had  her  consult  a 
physician. 

He  was  to  pay  the  doctor  a dollar  a 
month,  but  when  the  doctor  learned  of 
their  story  he  refused  to  take  any 
money.  Friday  last  she  went  to  bed 
very  ill.  In  the  middle  of  the  night  she 
woke  her  husband  and  asked  for  her 
medicine,  gasping  that  she  was  chok- 
ing. 

“She  died  in  five  minutes,’’  said  Coll, 
bursting  into'  tears. 

The  commissioners  up  to  this  point 
because  of  Mr.  Darrow’s  skillful  ma  - 
ner  in  directing  the  witness’  recital  of 
his  story,  did  not  know  that  the  wife 
had  died. 

“Died?”  queried  Judge  Gray,  stopping 
suddenly  in  his  pacing  up  and  down 
the  bench.  “Did  you  say  she  died?” 

“Tes,  sir;  died  in  my  arms,  with  not 
a soul  in  the  house  but  ourselves.” 

“And  you  buried  her  yesterday?”  in- 
terposed Mr.  Darrow. 

“Yesterday,”  sobbed  the  broken- 
hearted old  fellow. 

Commissioners  Affected. 

Judge  Gray  sat  down  and  looked 
compassionately  at  the  weeping  man  on 
the  stand.  He  had  no  doubt  witnessed 
many  sad  scenes  in  court,  but  likely 
nothing  ever  moved  him  as  did  this. 
Bishop  Spaulding  wheeled  half  way 
round  in  his  chair  and  looked  at  the 
rear  wall.  Every  other  commissioner 
dropped  his  eyes,  and  old  General  Wil- 
son, who  has  seen  death  in  its  most 
terrifying  forms  on  a score  of  fields, 
bent  forward  over  some  writing  until 
his  face  was  not  readily  visible. 

When  the  witness  had  composed  him- 
self, Mr.  Darrow  asked  concerning  the 
mother-in-law.  Mr.  Coll  said  that  the 
shock  of  the  daughter’s  tragic  death 
had  greatly  injured  her,  and  the  priest 
gave  her  the  last  sacraments  Monday 
night. 

“That’s  all,  Mr.  Coll,”  said  Mr.  Dar- 
row. 

“That’s  enough,”  remarked  Judge 
Gray. 

Scarcely  less  distressing  was  a story 
told  by  Mrs.  Kate  Burns,  an  aged 
widow,  of  Jeddo.  Her  husband  was 
killed  in  the  Markle  & Co.  mines  four- 
teen years  ago,  leaving  her  with  four 
children,  the  oldest  a boy  of  8 years. 
They  had  been  living  in  a four-room 
company  house  for  nine  years,  but  on 
the  death  of  the  husband  and  father 
moved  to  a two-room  company  house 
for  which  the  rental  was  $3.65  per 
month. 

By  taking  in  washing  and  going  out 
doing  house  work  and  cleaning  the 
company’s  offices  she  managed  to  keep 
her  boy  at  school  until  he  was  14.  He 
then  went  to  work  in  the  breaker.  His 


first  cheek,  or  due  bill,  showed  him 
$396  in  debt  to  the  company  for  six 
years  rent  and  coal.  The  ^econd  oldest 
boy  was  put  to  work  and  the  two  of 
them  together  with  the  mother,  after 
eight  years  of  hardship,  succeeded  last 
August  in  getting  out  of  the  com- 
pany’s debt.  Her  store  bill  all  these 
years  was  kept  paid  with  cash  earned 
by  the  mother. 

Were  Merely  Spectators. 

General  Counsel  David  Willcox,  of 
the  Delaware  and  Hudson  company, 
and  General  Counsel  J.  W.  Brownell, 
of  the  Erie  company,  were  present  yes- 
terday, but  took  no  hand  in  the  pro- 
ceedings. Mr.  Wolverton,  who  is  the 
only  out-of-town  company  lawyer  at- 
tending all  the  sessions,  had  nothing 
whatever  to  say.  Mr.  Gowan,  of  the 
Lehigh  Valley  company,  the  only  other 
out-of-town  company  counsel  present, 
contented  himself  with  cross-examin- 
ing one  witness  from  a Lehigh  Valley 
colliery  at  Hazleton. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion Attorney  H.  C.  Reynolds  made 
announcement  of  the  death  of  Dr. 
Rice,  one  of  the  independent  operators, 
and  Judge  Gray  spoke  the  regrets  of 
the  commission  at  the  sad  news. 

The  day  up  to  3.30  was  consumed 
with  an  examination  of  more  witnesses 
regarding  conditions  at  the  Markle  & 
Co.  collieries.  In  the  last  hour  ten 
witnesses  were  put  on  the  stand  to 
testify  regarding  alleged  discrimina- 
tion against  union  men  by  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  and  Pennsylvania 
companies. 

The  first  witness  was  Neil  McMon- 
igle.  His  testimony  was  to  the  effect 
that  when  working  by  the  day  for 
Markle  & Co.  he  would  be  given  a 
place  where  he  could  load  sixteen  or 
eighteen  cars  a day,  but  when  work- 
ing by  contract  he  could  only  get  out 
three  or  four  cars  a day.  He  also  told 
of  having  been  seriously  hurt  a num- 
ber of  times  and  that  he  never  saw  a 
mine  inspector  in  the  mine. 

His  Day’s  Pay. 

B.  D.  Gallagher,  a Markle  & Co. 
miner  from  Jeddo,  told  that  since  the 
close  of  the  strike  he  has  been  able 
to  earn  only  60  or  70  cents  a day.  Be- 
fore the  strike  he  and  the  other  men 
in  his  vein,  which  is  very  thin  and 
“dirty,”  worked  as  company  miners, 
receiving  $2.27  a day  besides  free  pow- 
der, oil  and  cotton.  Since  the  strike 
the  company  has  done  away  with  the 
“day’s  pay"  or  company  miner,  and 
compelled  the  men  to  take  the  places 
under  contract  or  nothing  at  all.  He 
can  cut  only  four  cars  of  coal  with  a 
keg  of  powder  and  eight  cars  a week 
is  his  best  product. 

Judge  Gray  at  this  juncture  asked 
how  much  a keg  of  powder  was  worth 
In  the  open  market. 

Mr.  Crawford  replied  that  It  was 
$1.25.  Attorney  John  J.  Shea,  from  the 
miners’  table  said  “The  gentlemen 
about  me  here  say  it  can  be  bought 
for  90  cents.” 


Judge  Gray  remarked  that  he  could 
see  how  it  was  a good  thing  to  have 
the  powder  purchased  and  distributed 
by  the  company,  providing  the  com- 
pany sold  it  at  a fair  price. 

Andrew  Hannick,  a Jeddo  laborer, 
told  of  having  been  evicted  and  re- 
fused re-employment  by  Markle  & Co. 
He  supposed  it  was  because  he  advised 
his  fellow  Hungarians  not  to  sign  a 
paper  authorizing  the  company  to  stop 
store  bills  out  of  their  wages.  He  also 
testified  that  he  had  worked  four  years 
at  Jeddo  and  never  saw  the  mine  in- 
spector. 

Mike  Kobsh,  a Hazleton  laborer  tes- 
tified he  never  saw  a mine  inspector  in 
the  mine.  In  answer  to  a question  by 
Mr.  Reynolds,  he  admitted  he  would 
not  know  the  inspector  if  he  saw  him. 

Were  Full  Handed. 

John  Canaira,  a Lehigh  Valley  man. 
was  inadvertently  called  to  the  stand, 
but  while  he  was  on  Mr.  McCarthy  de- 
cided to  have  him  tell  his  story.  It  was 
simply  to  the  effect  that  he  was  re- 
fused re-employment  at  colliery  No.  40, 
applied  four  times,  and  was  told  each 
time  by  the  boss  that  “they  were  full 
handed.”  Attorney  Francis  I.  Gowan 
elicited  the  fact  that  this  colliery  start- 
ed with  non-union  men  during  the 
strike  and  let  it  go  at  that. 

Peter  J.  Gallagher,  of  Hazleton,  a 
former  employe  of  Markle  & Co.,  but 
now  permanently  engaged  in  the  duties 
of  national  board  member  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  for  district  No.  7,  testi- 
fied at  length  about  general  conditions 
and  also  explained  in  detail  the  work- 
ings of  Markle  & Co.’s  plan  of  adding 
the  ten  per  cent  increase  of  1900  to 
which  considable  time  was  devoted  the 
day  before.  To  get  the  full  benefit  of 
the  ten  per  cent.,  Mr.  Gallagher  claimed, 
it  was  necessary  to  cut  twelve  cars  of 
coal  with  each  keg  of  powder.  Ordin- 
arily from  7 to  10  cars  only  can  be  cut 
with  one  keg  of  powder.  For  the  past 
two  years  his  wages  averaged  $32  a 
month.  The  air  was  so  bad  in  some 
places  he  worked  he  used  a candle  in- 
stead of  a lamp  because  its  flame  con- 
sumed less  oxygen. 

Mr.  Gallagher  also  told  of  an  agree- 
ment made  in  1875  that  8 cubic  feet 
should  be  added  to  the  40  cubic  feet 
of  loose  coal  required  for  a ton.  to 
make  good  to  the  companies  the  impur- 
ities that  would  get  into  the  40  cubic 
feet.  This,  the  witness  had  been  told 
by  his  father,  was  a provision  made  to 
do  away  with  docking.  It  is  impossible, 
he  said,  to  load  24  cubic  feet  of  impuri- 
ties into  a three  ton  car,  unless  it  was 
done  maliciously,  by  saving  up  slate, 
bony  and  other  impurities  out  of  two 
or  three  car  loads  of  material  and  put- 
ting it  all  in  one  car.  When  there  is 
docking  done  the  witness  said  the  min- 
er is  penalized  doubly.  His  experience 
was  that  docking  ran  from  6 to  11  per 
cent. 

Paid  $3.50  a Day. 

Mr.  Torrey  asked  the  witness  a few 
quest  tens  about  his  duties  as  national 


organizer  and  elicited  the  fact  that  he 
is  paid  $3. CO  a day. 

M'.l.e  Eaker,  an  eighteen-year-old 
breaker  boy  from  Jeddo,  told  that  he 
received  85  cents  a day  before  the 
strike,  and  75  cents  a day  after  the 
strike  for  doing  the  same  work.  He 
had  no  intimation  that  he  was  working 
for  reduced  wages  until  he  received 
his  two  weeks’  pay.  The  boy  also 
stated  that  he  was  clubbed  by  the 
breaker  boss,  frequently. 

The  case  against  Markle  & Co.,  was 
then  brought  to  a close.  Mr.  Darrow 
read  from  a supreme  court  opinion  in 
the  case  of  Markle  against  Wilbur  that 
in  four  years  Markle  & Co.,  cleared  $2,- 
000,000.  He  also  put  in  evidence  the 
statement  of  John  Markle  to  the  presi- 
dent at  the  time  the  submission 
proposition  was  under  consideration,  in 
which  Mr.  Markle  demands  troops  to 
protect  families  in  their  homes. 

After  the  case  of  P.  H.  McDonald, 
told  of  above,  had  been  disposed  of,  P. 
H.  McCann,  a D.  &H.  carpenter,  took 
the  stand  and  testified  he  was  refused 
re-employment.  Mr.  Torrey  developed 
the  fact  on  cross-examination  that  he 
refused  to  assist  in  the  boiler  room  dur- 
ing the  strike  and  quit  the  company. 
The  foreman,  he  said,  told  him  he 
didn't  know  when  he  could  give  him  his 
job  back  and  McCann  took  away  his 
tools. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

William  Kill  who  had  a heading  at 
the  Grassy  Island  colliery  of  the  D.  & 
H.  company  in  Olyphant,  claimed  he 
was  relused  reemployment  because  he 
was  treasurer  of  the  union.  He  ad- 
mitted there  were  too  many  men  at  the 
Grassy  Island  even  before  the  strike, 
and  that  at  the  end  of  the  strike  the 
foreman  simply  told  him  he  had  too 
many  men. 

Prefers  Young  Men. 

George  Tavicr,  an  Erie  fire-boss,  aged 
sixty,  quit  work  during  the  strike  rath- 
er than  be  sworn  in  as  a coal  and  iron 
policeman  to  protect  the  company’s 
property.  He  believed  he  was  being 
blacklisted  because  he  had  applied  at 
a number  of  places  and  couldn’t  get 
work.  Major  Warren  brought  it  out 
that  the  witness  was  60  years  of  age 
and  that  the  companies  prefer  young 
men  for  this  position. 

William  Earley,  a D.  & H.  fireboss 
from  Parsons,  quit  work  rather  than 
remain  in  the  fire  room  and  was  re- 
fused re-employment.  Mr.  Torrey  ad- 
duced on  cross-examination  that  the 
witness  was  a justice  of  the  peace  and 
had  been  perniciously  active  in  dealing 
with  cases  against  non-unionists. 

James  Allen,  an  engineer  at  the 
Grassy  Island,  found  a man  in  his 
place  when  he  went  to  look  for  re-e(m- 


79 

ployment  after  the  strike.  He  tried  at 
two  other  places  and  could  not  secure 
work. 

Thomas  Wilson,  a fireman  who  struck 
at  the  Old  Forge  colliery  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Coal  Company  was  refused  re- 
employment. Major  Warren  asked 
questions  indicating  that  the  company 
believed  him  implicated  in  the  dyna- 
miting of  a non-unionist’s  house. 

John  Balderson,  a laborer  at  Olyphant 
No.  2 colliery  of  the  D.  & H.  company, 
was  told  at  the  close  of  the  strike  that 
the  company  had  too  many  men. 

Daniel  McMillan,  a Pennsylvania  Coal 
Company  striker,  couldn’t  give  any 
reason  for  not  being  taken  back.  Major 
Warren  got  him  to  admit  that  at  a 
meeting  of  the  St.  Aloyisus  Temperance 
society,  he  voted  to  expel  a brother 
member,  Andrew  Healey,  who  became  a 
coal  and  iron  policeman  in  the  employ 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  Company. 

Samuel  Mullen,  an  expert  “heading” 
man  at  the  Grassy  Island,  was  dis- 
charged the  day  after  the  strike  be- 
cause he  refused  to  take  a “heading” 
assigned  to  him  by  the  foreman.  Mr. 
Torrey  got  the  witness  to  admit  that 
the  heading  in  question  is  boycotted, 
but  maintained  he  did  not  refuse  on 
that  account,  but  because  of  his  health. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Dec.  lO. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec.  11.] 


Comparatively  little  testimony  was 
taken  yesterday  at  the  session  of  the 
strike  commission,  because  in  the  first 
place  considerable  time  was  consumed 
in  discussions  on  the  question  of  pro- 
cedure and,  secondly,  because  the  min- 
ers exhausted  their  available  witnesses 
when  the  afternoon  session  was  half 
over. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion, Judge  Grey  intimated  very  strong- 
ly that  the  commission  would  be 
pleased  not  to  have  too  much  cumula- 
tive testimony,  and  better  co-operation 
on  the  part  of  the  attorneys  in  expedit- 
ing the  work  in  hand.  The  commis- 
sion, he  said,  did  not  want  to  place  any 
limitations  on  either  side,  but  he 
would  suggest  that  if  the  miners  had 
occasion  to  do  it  they  would  be  priv- 
ileged to  offer  rebuttal  testimony. 

Mr.  Darrow  said  he  did  not  wish  to 
unduly  protract  the  case,  and  suggest- 
ed that  if  the  other  side  would  indi- 
cate how  far  it  proposed  to  go  into  the 
matter  of  strike  violence  and  the  like, 
he  would  probably  be  able  to  govern 
himself  accordingly,  and  possibly  elim- 
inate much  of  the  testimony  it  was  pro- 
posed to  offer. 

General  Wilson  remarked  that  he  had 
heard  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  miners 
say  the  day  before  that  they  had  300 
more  witnesses  to  examine  and  that 
they  would  take  up  sixty  days  longer 
in  presenting  their  case  in  chief. 


Made  Another  Bid. 

Mr.  Darrow  seized  upon  this  as  an 
opportunity  for  making  another  bid  fo” 
adjustment.  His  side,  he  said,  had  a 
list  of  witnesses  quite  that  large,  and 
might  find  it  necessary  to  take  up  a 
great  deal  of  time  in  presenting  its  case. 
However,  he  would  be  willing  to  “co- 
operate” with  the  parties  on  the  other 
side  in  an  effort  at  eliminating  the 
necessity  of  producing  all  this  mass  of 
testimony. 

The  only  comment  from  the  “parties 
on  the  other  side”  was  a remark  by 
Mr.  Torrey  of  the  D.  & H.  Company 
that  he  felt  the  commission  was  not 
intending  to  decide  the  case  on  “the 
avoirdupois  of  the  evidence.” 

In  the  afternoon,  Judge  Gray  intro- 
duced again  the  subject  of  expediting 
the  hearings.  He  said  it  had  been  sug- 
gested to  him  that  possibly  the  delay  on 
the  part  of  the  operators  in  presenting 
their  statistics  was  accounted  for  by  a 
feeling  on  their  part  that  they  might 
by  standing  on  some  technical  right, 
withhold  these  statistics,  until  after 
the  miners  completed  their  case.  He 
trusted  this  was  not  the  case.  If  it 
was  he  would  have  to  say  that  the  com- 
panies were  not  giving  the  commission 
the  co-operation  in  getting  at  vital 
facts  that  was  to  be  expected  from 
them.  At  all  events,  he  said,  such  a 
stand  was  not  well  taken,  as  under  an 


application  of  technical  rules  the  min- 
ers could  demand  of  the  companies  that 
they  present  their  books,  as  the  books 
were  not  alone  the  best  but,  in  a mea- 
sure, the  only  evidence  available  as  to 
wages. 

Mr.  Reynolds  averred  that  as  far  as 
he  knew  the  companies  were  not  with- 
holding their  statistics  for  any  reason 
other  than  that  they  have  not  complet- 
ed the  preparation  of  them. 

Three  of  the  companies  have  already 
presented  their  statistics,  the  Penn- 
sylvania Coal  company,  the  Hillside 
Coal  and  Iron  company  and  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company.  The  sta- 
tistics of  the  latter  were  presented  yps- 
terday.  An  interesting  summary  of 
them  in  a printed  pamphlet  was  dis- 
tributed at  the  afternoon  session. 

The  summary  was  as  follows: 

The  Delaware  and  Hudson  compary 
carries  on  the  business  of  coal  mining 
similarly  to  the  mining  operators  gener- 
ally by  contracting  with  the  miners  who 
employ  such  laborers  as  they  see  fit.  and 
the-e  respectively  cut  or  blast  and  load 
the  coal;  and  by  the  employment  of  oth- 
er men  in  and  about  the  mines  and 
breakers,  whose  work,  generally  speak- 
ing, consists  of  development  work  and 
preparing  the  coal  for  market.  Ordinar- 
ily each  miner  employs  not  more  than 
one  laborer  to  assist  him. 

The  terms  of  the  contract  vary  with 
the  variations  and  character  of  the  work 
to  be  performed.  The  miner  is  paid  an 
agreed  rate  for  the  coal  mined,  to  which 


80 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


are  added  various  amounts  for  rock  ex- 
cavation and  day’s  work  and  dead  work, 
and  various  allowances  to  compensate 
for  difficulties  encountered.  The  gross 
amounts  received  by  the  miners  are  div- 
ided between  themselves  and  their  labor- 
ers as  they  may  agTee. 

All  other  employes  than  miners  and 
their  laborers  are  hired  by  the  operator 
by  the  day  or  month. 

The  following  is  a statement  of  the 
facts  as  to  this  company  regarding  these 
matters  during  the  year  1901: 

1.  Total  number  of  breakers  op- 

erated in  1901  was  24 

2.  Total  tons  of  coal  of  all  sizes 

produced  in  1901  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

Prepared  sizes  ..3,625.907.06 
Steam  sizes  (pea 
and  smaller) ..  .1,357,343.01 
Washery  coal  ...  72,142.11 

5,055.392.18 

3.  Total  amount  paid  in  1901 


for  labor,  services  of  all 
classes,  material,  supplies, 
royalties  and  sinking  fund 
at  five  cents  per  ton,  con- 
nected with  mining  opera- 
tions   $7,956,675  49 

4.  Total  amount  paid  to  min- 

ers after  deducting  supplies 

in  1901  3,282,873  03 

5.  Average  amount  paid  to 

each  miner  in  1901  (exclu- 
sive of  supplies)  1,072  15 

6.  Approximate  daily  earnings 

of  miners  on  the  basis  of 
breaker  days  3 20 

7.  Approximate  daily  earnings 

of  laborers  on  the  basis  of 
breaker  days  2 23 

8.  Approximate  average  earn- 

ings in  1901  for  miner 622  68 

9.  Approximate  average  earn- 

ings in  1901  for  laborer 449  47 

10.  Men  employed  by  the  day 

or  month  during  1901  earned 

in  the  aggregate  2,076,353  00 

11.  Boys  employed  by  the  day 

or  month  during  1901  earned 

in  the  aggregate  425,636  13 

12.  Average  number  of  days 

breakers  operated  in  1901..  191% 

13.  Lost  time  in  1901  by  strikes 

and  holidays  other  than  le- 
gal holidays  an  average  at 
each  colliery  of  14.7  Days 


14.  Lost  time  in  1901  by  miners 

per  colliery  between  break- 
er starts  and  miner  starts 
an  average  for  each  miner 
of  15.75  Days 

15.  Total  average  time  lost  per 

colliery  adding  the  two 

above  together  30.45  Days 

or  average  loss  of  earning 
capacity  of  13  2-3  per  cent. 

16.  The  company  has  no  company  store  or 

company  doctor. 

MINERS'  AND  LABORERS'  EARN- 
INGS. 

(Distribution  between  miners  and  labor- 


ers approximated.) 

Number  of  miners  3133 

Number  of  laborers  (approxi- 
mated)   2656 

Gross  earnings  $3,442,065  40 

Net  earnings  after  deducting 

supplies  3,144,669  24 

Average  amount  to  each  miner 

including  laborer  1,072  15 

Total  net  earnings  miners 1,950,871  90 

Total  net  earnings  laborers 1,193,797  34 

Average  net  earnings  of  miner 
per  year  (58  per  cent.)  622  68 


Average  net  earnings  of  labor- 
er per  year  (42  per  cent.) 449  47 


No.  of  days  worked  by  mines..  4792 

Average  miner’s  earnings  per 

day  3.20 

Average  laborer's  earnings  per 

day  2.23 

Average  hours  worked  per  day 

of  10  hours  by  miners  5% 

Average  hours  worked  per  day 
of  10  hours  by  laborers 8% 


MINERS’  AND  LABORERS’  EARN- 
INGS NOT  INCLUDED  IN  ABOVE. 


(Collieries  operated  less 

than  half  the 

year.) 

Man- 

Dela- 

Balti- 

ville. 

ware. 

more, 2. 

No.  miners  

No.  laborers  (ap- 

116 

67 

58 

proximated)  

116 

60 

52 

Gross  earnings 55,807.12 

49,145.59 

33,251.08 

Net  earnings  af- 

ter  deducting 

supplies  48,460.13 

44,984.99 

30,291.48 

Average  amount 

to  each  miner 
including  labor.. 

417.75 

691.33 

543.79 

Total  net  earn- 

ings  miners  29,857.76 

33,547.19 

19,469.24 

Total  net  earn- 

ings  laborers 18,602.37 

11,437.80 

10,822.24 

Average  net  earn- 

ings  of  miner... 

257.39 

500.70 

335.67 

Average  net  earn- 
ings, laborer 

No.  days  worked 

160.36 

190.63 

208.12 

79% 

76% 

83% 

Average  miner’s 

earnings  per  day 

3.23 

6.56 

4.03 

Average  laborer’s 
earnings  per  day 
Average  hours 

2.01 

2.50 

2.50 

worked  per  day 
of  10  hours  by 
miners  

9 

7 

6 

Average  hours 

worked  per  day 
of  10  hours  by 
laborers  

10 

9 

8 

At  Manville— Earnings  are  for  part  of 
year;  operated  balance  of  year  by  D.,  L. 
& W.  R.  R.  Co. 

At  Delaware  and  Baltimore  No.  2 — 
Short  time  and  low  earnings  due  to  fires. 

Average  Earning-s. 

Selecting  in  each  vein  of  each  colliery 
five  of  the  best  earners  and  five  of  the 
poorest  earners  whose  average  earnings 
closely  approximate  the  general  average 
for  all  the  miners,  it  was  found  that  the 
net  earnings  of  the  miners  classified 
themselves  as  follows: 


Miners— 

1 class  $1,260  02 

2 class  S87  08 

3 class  676  12 

4 class  513  05 

5 class  2S3  33 

Average — 

1,  2 class  $1,068  58 

1,  2,  3 class  857  81 

1,  2.  3,  4 class  706  65 

1,  2,  3,  4,  5 class  627  34 


The  first  class  represented  10 1-3  per 
cent  of  the  miners;  the  second  class,  11 
per  cent.;  the  third  class,  24%  per  cent.; 
the  fourth  class  35  1-3  per  cent.,  and  the 
fifth  class,  19  per  cent. 

The  earnings  of  the  day  and  monthly 
men  and  boys  (popularly  designated 
“company  men”)  classify  themselves  as 


follows: 

Company  Men— 

292  received  an  average  of  $902  19 

640  received  an  average  of  649  12 


662  received  an  average  of  &46  15 

1751  received  an  average  of  422  58 

234  received  an  average  of  328  64 

Averages  for  combined  class  of  com- 
pany men — 

1,  2 class  $728  36 

1.  2,  3 class  652  68 

1,  2,  3,  4 class  532  25 

1,  2,  3,  4,  5 class  518  95 

Boys — 

202  received  an  average  of  $340  50 

672  received  an  average  of  247  29 

1177  received  an  average  of  143  38 

Averages  for  combined  classes  of  boys — 

1,  2 class  $268  88 

1,  2,  3 class  196  93 

In  addition  to  the  above  the  company 
paid  out  to  other  men  and  boys  the  fol- 
lowing sums  for  labor: 

979  men  earning  $217, 9S4  01 

309  boys  earning  21,552  59 


These  included  540  men  and  309  boys 
employed  for  short  periods  and  for  inci- 
dental work,  -who  earned,  men.  $104,801.41, 
and,  boys,  $21,552.59.  and  439  old.  men  or 
novices  not  speaking  the  English  lan- 
guage, doing  boy’s  work  as  slate  pickers 
or  door-men.  at  the  rate  of  $1.10  per  day, 
who  earned  $113,182.63. 

Carefully  Prepared. 

The  statements  from  which  the  forego- 
ing summaries  are  taken  have  been  care- 
fully prepared,  and  separately  show  the 
earnings  of  ever?'  person  employed  by 
the  company  in  1901.  They  have  been 
submitted  to  and  certified  by  the  account- 
ant of  the  anthracite  mine  workers.  They 
are  very  voluminous,  but  are  in  form  to 
be  readily  referred  to  by  the  commission. 

In  addition,  the  company  has  prepared 
and  will  submit  to  the  commission  in  due 
course  other  data  which  may  be  of  use, 
among  which  may  be  specified  the  follow- 
ing: 

1.  Statement  of  dockage  at  its  several 
collieries  in  1901,  the  average  being  3.04 
per  cent. 

2.  Statement  covering  every  day  in  1901 
and  showing  all  idle  days  and  the  reasons 
therefor. 

3.  Statement  showing  the  classes  and 
duties  of  the  company  men  and  glossary 
of  mining  terms  used  in  its  business. 

4.  Statement  showing,  the  men  in  the 
employ  of  the  company  who  have  boys 
working  in  the  mines  and  breakers,  with 
the  annual  earnings  of  the  parents,  the 
average  being  $539.49. 

5.  Statement  showing  number  of  houses 
owned  by  the  company,  and  the  renta’s 
therefor,  which  average  $5.44  per  month. 

6.  Statement  showing  the  names  and 
number  of  the  miners  of  the  company, 
who  are  owners  of  real  estate,  the  total 
number  being  1039,  or  29  per  cent,  of  the 
whole. 

7.  Statement  showing  the  names  and 
addresses  of  all  coal  and  iron  policemen 
employed  by  the  company  during  the  re- 
cent strike. 

The  records  of  the  company,  of  course, 
contain  much  information  qualifying  the 
earning  capacity  of  individual  employes. 
These  It  will  be  pleased  to  exhibit  to  the 
commission  and  a representative  of  the 
mine  workers,  if  that  course  should  be 
deemed  desirable. 

SUPT.  LUTHER’S  REPLY. 

Attorney  Wolverton,  at  the  opening 
of  the  afternoon  session,  filed  without 
reading,  a letter  from  General  Superin- 
tendent Luther,  of  the  Philadelphia  & 
Reading  Coal  and  Iron  company,  re- 
sponding to  the  request  contained  in  the 


communication  from  Commissioner 
Watkins,  Saturday,  for  information  as 
to  whether  or  not  the  companies  had 
been  adusting  differences  with  their 
men,  as  promised  in  the  notices  posted 
at  the  close  of  the  1900  strike.  Mr. 
Luther’s  letter  stated  that  he  knew  of 
no  instance  in  which  his  company  failed 
to  satisfactorily  adjust  local  griev- 
ances by  conferences  between  the  offic- 
ials and  the  employes. 

What  the  miners’  side  regarded  as  a 
big  sensation  was  sprung  yesterday, 
when  they  put  two  witnesses  on  the 
stand  to  detail  an  alleged  plot  to  break 
the  strike  in  September  last  by  bribing 
officers  of  mine  workers’  locals. 

The  first  of  the  two  witnesses  was 
John  Early,  of  Dunmore,  an  employe 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company,  and 
president  of  the  Gypsy  Grove  local. 
The  other  was  P.  F.  O’Horo,  president 
of  No.  5 local,  of  Dunmore. 

Made  an  Appointment. 

Early  swore  that  on  September  23,  a 
neighbor  and  fellow-miner,  John  Mur- 
phy, told  him  that  Michael  Grimes,  an 
ex-mine  foreman  and  political  worker, 
wanted  to  see  him  at  the  Valley  house, 
about  doing  some  political  work  for 
Congressman  William  Connell. 

Early  went  at  once  to  see  Grimes, 
and  after  some  little  talk  about  poli- 
tics, Grimes  opened  up  tbe  subject  of 
strike  by  asking  if  he  did  not  think  the 
men  were  wavering  a little.  Early  ad- 
mitted he  thought  they  were  weaken- 
ing a little. 

“A  break  is  coming,”  Grimes  is  al- 
leged to  have  said.  “Why  can’t  we 
have  something  out  of  it.” 

Then,  according  to  Early’s  statement. 
Grimes  outlined  a plan  whereby  they 
might  profit  by  anticipating  the 
“break.”  It  was,  in  effect,  that  ten 
men  from  the  five  different  locals  in 
Dunmore  should  be  bribed  to  draft  and 
introduce  resolutions  declaring  that  it 
would  be  better  to  call  off  the  strike 
than  have  it  break  up,  and  that  it  was 
time  then  to  call  it  off. 

It  could  be  argued,  Grimes  is  alleged 
to  have  explained,  that  if  the  strike 
broke  up  the  union  would  be  wrecked; 
if  it  was  called  off,  the  union  would  be 
saved  for  another  fight  at  a more  pro- 
pitious time. 

Early  testified  that  he  pretended  to 
agree  to  the  plot  to  draw  Grimes  on, 
and  inquired  what  there  was  in  it. 
Grimes,  the  wdtness  averred,  told  him 
he  would  get  $2,500  and  expenses,  and 
any  job  under  any  coal  company  he 
might  select.  He  would  also  give  $100 
for  each  of  the  ten  men  that  might  be 
selected  to  get  the  resolutions  before 
the  locals,  and  an  extra  $100  for  the 
one  of  the  ten  who  would  be  picked 
upon  as  a sort  of  first  lieutenant. 

P.  F.  O’Horo,  president  of  No.  5 local 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  in  Dun- 
more, was  picked  upon  as  the  first  lieu- 
tenant, and  Early  agreed  to  bring  him 
down  the  next  day.  As  soon  as  the  in- 
terview was  concluded,  Early,  so  he 
tells,  hastened  to  District  President 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

Nicholls’  headquarters  and  laid  bare 
the  plot.  He  was  advised  to  keep  up 
his  pretensions  and,  if  possible,  trap 
Grimes  into  disclosing  whom  he  repre- 
sented. 

Went  to  See  Grimes. 

The  next  day  Early  took  O’Hara  to 
see  Grimes,  and  the  latter  enlisted 
O’Hara’s  services. 

“I’m  just  as  good  a union  man  as 
either  of  you,”  Grimes  is  alleged  to 
have  said,  “but  there  is  no  reason  why 
we  shouldn’t  make  something  out  of 
this.  There  is  a man  named  Howell, 
over  on  the  West  Side,  getting  the 
Welsh  miners  to  go  back.  We  don’t 
want  that  the  Irish  shall  be  ostracized 
by  the  companies,  do  we? 

“You  know,  Paddy,”  Grimes,  it  is 
claimed,  went  on  to  say,  addressing 
O’Hara,  “there  ought  to  be  some  Irish 
in  bosses’  positions.  You  know  we  got 
mine  foreman’s  certificates  before  for 
men  that  couldn’t  pass  the  examina- 
tion, and  I guess  you’ll  believe  me,  we 
can  get  them  again.” 

Early  swore  further  that  Grimes  told 
him  that  ministers  over  in  West  Scran- 
ton were  working  to  get  the  men  to 
break  the  strike,  “but,”  he  is  said  to 
have  added,  “they  are  not  getting  as 
much  out  of  it  as  we  are.” 

The  details  of  hoT«.  the  scheme  was  to 
be  worked  was  then  discussed,  accord- 
ing to  Early,  and  after  he  had  secured 
a promise  of  $300  apiece  for  thirty  men 
who  would  work  to  get  the  resolutions 
passed,  he  and  O’Hara  left  Grimes  and 
reported  to  mine  workers’  headquar- 
ters. District  President  Nicholls  put  a 
card  in  the  papers  warning  the  strik- 
ers against  Grimes.  This,  Early  said, 
closed  the  incident,  although  Grimes 
wanted  him  to  come  to  see  him  after- 
wards. 

When  the  witness  got  through  with 
his  story,  Mr.  Darrow  turned  to  the 
operators’  attorneys  and  said: 

“You  may  cross-examine  him,  gentle- 
men.” 

There  was  a silence  of  half  a minute. 
Judge  Gray  asked:  “Are  there  any 

questions?” 

Not  Represented. 

With  the  most  bland  expression  of 
countenance  imaginable,  Mr.  Torrey 
hesitatingly  arose  and,  looking  around 
slowly,  inquiringly  remarked,  after  a 
pause:  “I  don’t  think  Mr.  Grimes  is 

reoresented  here.” 

The  force  and  significance  of  Mr. 
Torrey’s  happy  saying  brought  a 
hearty  laugh  from  all  the  hearers. 

Commissioner  Clark  halted  the  wit- 
ness as  he  was  leaving  the  stand  to  in- 
quire into  the  workings  of  the  check- 
weighman  plan  existing  at  this  colliery. 
The  witness  said  it  was  very  satisfac- 
tory and  that  the  miners  have  no  com- 
plaint to  make.  He  added  that  since 
the  adoption  of  this  system  in  1899,  the 
miners  are  being  credited  with  con- 
siderably more  coal  than  they  were  be- 
fore. On  being  cross-examined  by  Ma- 
jor Warren,  the  witness  admitted  that 
the  cheek-weighman  is  given  every  op- 


81 

portunity  to  see  that  the  coal  is  prop- 
erly weighed  by  the  company’s  weigh- 
man,  and  that  there  is  a notice  posted 
at  the  mine  that  any  miner  can  examine 
and  test  the  scales. 

City  Superintendent  of  Schools 
George  W.  Phillips,  County  Superin- 
tendent of  Schools  J.  C.  Taylor  and 
Prof.  M.  W.  Cummings,  principal  of  the 
Olyphant  schools,  gave  testimony  in  the 
morning  regarding  the  ability  of  miners 
to  send  their  children  to  school. 

Dr.  Phillips  gave  interesting  and  ex- 
tensive data  regarding  this  matter.  He 
showed  that  only  10  per  cent  of  the  1,- 
004  pupils  in  the  high  school  are  chil- 
dren of  mine  workers,  and  that  the  ra- 
tio decreases  constantly  from  the  first 
year  on. 

Seventy-five  per  cent  of  miners’  chil- 
dren he  said  leave  school  before  their 
twelfth  year.  The  night  schools,  with 
an  attendance  of  2,937,  are  attended  al- 
most exclusively  by  miners’  children. 

Major  Warren  on  cross-examination, 
got  the  witness  to  admit  that  it  is 
largely  the  fault  of  the  children  not 
wanting  to  go  to  school  that  so  many 
of  them  leave  school  for  wrork. 

Was  a Mine  Worker. 

Attorney  Reynolds  developed  the  fact 
that  Dr.  Phillips’  father  was  a mine 
worker,  and  that  he  himself  is  a grad- 
uate of  Lafayette;  that  he  has  a broth- 
er who  is  treasurer  of  a trust  company 
and  two  others  in  business.  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds asked  if  it  was  not  true  that  a 
great  proportion  of  the  clergy,  doctors, 
lawyers,  newspapermen,  school  teach- 
ers and  the  like  are  sons  or  daughters 
of  men  who  are  or  were  miners.  He 
also  brought  it  out  that  Scranton 
schools  are  not  excelled  anywhere  and 
that  free  text  books  are  distributed; 
also  that  the  taxes  on  real  estate  paid 
by  corporations,  taken  with  the  appro- 
priations from  the  state  which  come 
from  taxes  paid  on  the  capital  stock  of 
corporations  is  sufficient  to  pay  the 
cost  of  running  all  the  schools  in  the 
county.  Mr.  Reynolds  also  called  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  there  are  near- 
ly 5,000  children  in  the  parochial 
schools,  and  Dr.  Phillips  admitted  that 
possibly  many  of  those  were  miners’ 
children.  It  was  surprising,  the  wit- 
ness said,  how  many  children  leave 
school  who  do  not  have  to  leave,  but 
it  still  remained  a fact  that  by  far  the 
larger  percentage  of  those  who  leave 
school  unwillingly  are  children  of  min- 
ers. 

County  Superintendent  Taylor  testi- 
fied that  he  had  taken  seven  mining 
districts  and  seven  agricultural  dis- 
tricts and  figured  the  per  centage  of 
children  between  the  ages  of  8 and  16 
not  attending  school.  In  the  agricul- 
tural districts,  the  average  per  cent, 
was  8 2-7;  in  the  mining  districts,  27  1-3. 

Attorney  J.  E.  Burr,  of  the  Ontario  & 
Western,  brought  out  that  there  are 
parochial  schools  and  kindergartens  in 
all  the  seven  mining  towns,  and  that 
the  children  in  the  agricultural  districts 
are  much  more  ambitious  for  educa- 


82 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


tion  than  children  in  cities  or  towns, 
particularly  in  Lackawanna  county. 

Children  of  Miners. 

Prof.  Cummings  told  that  80  per  cent, 
of  the  children  entering  the  Olyphant 
schools  are  children  of  miners,  and 
there  is  a constant  falling  off  in  the 
attendance  as  compared  with  the  en- 
rollment from  the  age  of  eight  years  on. 
At  the  age  of  fifteen,  for  instance,  the 
enrollment  was  105  and  the  attendance 
25. 

In  answer  to  questions  by  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds, Prof.  Cummings  told  that  he  and 
his  two  brothers  had  begun  life  in  the 
breaker;  that  one  of  his  brothers  is  in 
business  in  Scranton,  and  the  other 
superintendent  of  the  Olyphant  Water 
company,  also  that  a good  percentage 
of  Scranton’s  most  successful  men  were 
Olyphant  breaker  boys. 

John  Archbald,  a Lehigh  Valley  Coal 
Company  miner  at  No.  8 slope,  Hazle- 
ton, testify  that  it  was  impossible  for 
a contract  miner  to  make  more  than  a 
dollar  a day  at  this  place  because  of 
the  veins  being  so  thin. 

When  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Gowan, 
the  witness  could  give  the  name  of 
only  one  miner  who  made  only  a dol- 
lar a day. 

Tommy  Siger,  another  Lehigh  Valley 
man  from  Hazleton,  told  that  he  was 
laboring  for  his  father  and  that  when 
the  “old  man”  paid  him  off,  usually 
there  was  nothing  left  for  himself. 

Nathan  McNeal,  a Lehigh  Valley  en- 
gineer from  shaft  No.  40  went  out  on 
strike  when  the  engineers  were  called 
out  and  could  not  get  back. 

Earning’s  in  1901. 

Mr.  Gowan  brought  it  out  that  the 
witness  earned  $735  in  1901;  also  that 
shaft  No.  40  started  up  in  August,  three 
months  before  the  strike  ended.  George 
Simmonds,  a pump  runner,  had  a sim- 
ilar story  to  tell.  Mr.  Gowan  contented 
himself  with  the  development  of  the 
fact  that  Simmonds  left  his  position 
voluntarily,  and  that  it  was  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the 
mines  to  put  a man  in  his  place. 


P.  J.  McCormick,  check-weighman  at 
Olyphant  colliery,  No.  2,  of  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company,  explained 
how  he  kept  his  accounts.  First  of  all, 
he  said  he  keeps  a daily  sheet,  giving 
the  total  weight  of  coal  sent  out  by 
each  miner  and  the  amount  of  dock- 
age. It  is  compared  every  day  with 
the  company  weighman’s  list.  At  the 
end  of  the  month  the  sheet  is  posted 
for  public  inspection. 

The  total  output  of  the  breaker  at 
No.  2 last  year  was  414,491  tons.  It  pre- 
pares the  coal  from  No.  2 shaft,  Grassy 
Island  shaft  and  Grassy  Island  slope. 
The  total  dockage  was  13,912. 

There  are  two  beams  on  the  scale. 
One  is  gross  and  the  other  net.  One 
hundred  pounds  on  the  gross  beam  will 
register  eighty-eight  pounds  on  the  net 
beam.  The  gross  beam  registers  3,136 
pounds  when  the  net  beam  registers 
2,800  pounds.  The  report  of  the  mine 
department  was  presented  to  show  that 
80,000  tons  more  were  prepared  at  this 
colliery  in  1901  than  the  miners  were 
given  credit  for. 

Mr.  Torrey  explained  that  the  excess 
represented  the  smaller  sizes,  which  by 
agreement  the  miners  do  not  claim 
credit  for.  In  response  to  questions  by 
Mr.  Torrey,  the  witness  said  there  was 
no  general  complaint  on  the  score  of 
dockage  or  tonnag£  The  dockage  was 
only  about  3 per  cent.,  he  said. 

The  896  Pounds  Excess. 

In  answer  to  questions  by  Commis- 
sioners Gray  and  Watkins,  the  witness 
admitted  that  the  896  pounds  excess 
above  2,240  pounds  required  from  the 
miners,  represents  the  allowance  made 
for  what  were  unmarketable  sizes 
when  the  agreement  was  made  in  1877, 
and  that  the  dockage  is  a penalty  for 
impurities. 

Mr.  Torrey  brought  out  the  fact  that 
in  1877  the  miners  used  a rake  with 
tines  three  inches  apart  and  that  any- 
thing that  couldn't  be  raked  up  was 
not  sent  out.  Now,  however,  the  wit- 
ness said,  all  coal,  no  matter  how  fine, 
is  sent  out  and  the  most  of  it  is  mar- 
keted. 


P.  J.  Hogan,  check-weighman  at  the 
Eddy  Creek  colliery  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company  at  Olyphant,  tes- 
tified that  the  total  output  in  1901  at 
this  colliery  was  268,185  tons,  and  the 
dockage  13,800  tons.  The  output,  ac- 
cording to  the  report  of  the  bureau  of 
mines,  showed  an  output  of  242.280  tons. 

Mr.  Torrey  contented  himself  w ith 
adducing  the  fact  that  the  witness  is 
paid  by  the  miners  and  receives  $2.50  a 
day  of  ten  hours. 

The  consideration  of  conditions  at  the 
collieries  of  C.  Pardee  & Co.  was  then 
taken  up,  despite  a request  from  Mr. 
Gowan  and  2vfr.  Torrey  that  it  be  post- 
poned until  Attorney  Dickson  could  ar- 
rive from  Philadelphia.  Judge  Gray 
was  sorry  the  commission  was  unable 
to  accommodate  Mr.  Dickson. 

The  first  witness  called  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Carthy was  from  the  Harwood  colliery 
of  C.  Pardee  & Co.,  at  Hazleton.  James 
Sweeney  was  his  name.  He  said  he  was 
married  and  had  seven  children.  His 
wages  were  about  $35  or  $40  a month  on 
the  average.  Laborers  were  paid  $1.78 
a day.  The  ventilation  in  the  Harwood 
was  all  right,  he  said,  and  that  the 
company  never  docks  him. 

About  Mine  Inspector. 

Robert  Richardson,  from  the  Har- 
wood, told  that  he  could  earn  about  $35 
a month.  The  witness  hadn't  seen  a 
mine  inspector  in  a long  time.  When 
he  did  see  him,  the  mine  boss  accom- 
panied him.  Some  miners,  he  said, 
would  be  afraid  to  complain  to  the  in- 
spector when  the  boss  was  present,  but 
others  would  have  no  hesitancy  to  do 
so.  He  thought  eight  hours  was  long 
enough  to  work  in  the  mine  at  a shifi. 
He  knew  of  an  instance  of  a man  being 
docked  three  and  three-fourths  cars 
out  of  fifty-one. 

At  3.20  Mr.  Darrow  announced  that 
the  miners  had  no  more  witnesses  pres- 
ent, except  four  whom  it  was  agreed 
should  not  be  called  until  tomorrow, 
and,  accordingly,  Judge  Gray  declared 
adjournment. 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Dec.  11. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Deo.  12.] 


It  now  begins  to  look  as  if  the  mine 
strike  commission  would  be  able  to  con- 
clude the  taking  of  testimony  in  three 
weeks,  not  taking  into  account  the 
Christmas  recess. 

Attorney  Clarence  Darrow,  of  counsel 
for  the  miners,  said  yesterday,  to  the 
commission,  that  his  side  would  in  all 
probability  finish  its  presentation  of  di- 
rect testimony  this  week.  D.  J.  Mc- 
Carthy, another  of  the  miners’  attor- 
neys, said  afterwards,  that  his  side  was 
about  ready  to  quit  at  any  time,  now 
that  the  commissioners  will  indicate 
they  have  had  enough  of  such  informa- 
tion as  the  miners  are  presenting. 

One  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  op- 
erators’ attorneys  said  his  side  would 


likely  take  not  more  than  two  -weeks  in 
the  presentation  of  testimony.  This  in- 
cludes allowance  for  a liberal  cross-ex- 
amination. 

"We  feel,”  said  he,  “that  the  miners 
have  not  made  out  such  a case  as  re- 
quires any  considerable  amount  of  oral 
testimony  from  our  side.  The  main 
questions  at  issue  are  wages  and  hours 
of  employment.  Our  statistics  will 
speak  for  us  on  these  subjects,  both 
voluminously  and  eloquently.  Some 
oral  testimony  will  be  required  from  the 
companies  paying  by  the  car  or  meas- 
urement to  show  the  inexpediency  and 
impracticability  of  paying  by  weight,  • 
and  explanations  will  have  to  be"  made 
of  why  a miner  is  required  to  mine 


2,800  pounds  for  a ton,  and  why,  under 
the  existing  working  agreements,  a 
miner  has  no  legal  or  equitable  claim 
for  compensation  for  washery  product 
and  other  small  sizes.  We  might  go 
into  details  about  the  union's  responsi- 
bility for  strike  violence,  but  recogni- 
tion of  the  union  is  not  before  the  com- 
mission, and,  at  all  events,  the  com- 
missioners have  indicated  inferentially 
at  least  that  strike  violence  to  their 
mind  has  little  hearing  on  the  case  in 
hand.” 

About  Boycotting. 

An  interesting  colloquy  took  place  at 
the  afternoon  session  between  Judge 
Gray  and  Rev.  Father  O'Donnell,  of 
Olyphant,  on  the  matter  of  boycotting. 


Rev.  Father  O’Donnell  concluded  his 
testimony  on  cross-examination  by  an 
admission  that  he  knew  of  the  case  of 
a hotel  keeper  in  his  parish  being-  com- 
pelled to  go  out  of  business  because  of 
a boycott  placed  on  him  by  the  miners. 

‘‘You  don’t  approve  of  boycotting,  do 
you,  Father?”  said  Judge  Gray. 

“I  would  differentiate,”  said  the  wit- 
ness. "I  would  favor  boycotting  of  bad 
literature  or  immoral  playhouses.” 

“Yes,  yes,”  said  Judge  Gray. 

"If  I belonged  to  an  organization,” 
continued  the  witness,  “and  I felt  it 
was  to  my  interest  or  to  the  interest 
of  my  organization  to  refrain  from  pat- 
ronizing some  merchant,  I would  feel 
justified  in  doing  so.” 

“Of  course,  I agree  with  you  so  far,” 
said  the  judge.  “A  temperance  society, 
for  instance,  has  for  its  primal  purpose 
the  boycotting  of  saloons,  and  no  one 
will  accuse  a temperance  society  of 
being  an  evil  institution.  But,  Father, 
how  much  farther  would  you  go?” 

"I  would  advise  my  friends  not  to 
patronize  that  merchant,”  said  the  wit- 
ness. 

“Just  so,”  said  the  judge,  “but  you 
would  not  boycott  me  if  I refused  to 
boycott  the  merchant,  would  you?” 

“Oh,  no,  I would  not,”  answered  the 
witness. 

“That’s  -where  I draw  the  line,”  the 
commissioner  rejoined. 

Nothing  that  the  hearing  evoked  was 
listened  to  with  more  intense  interest 
than  this  exposition  of  the  legal  and 
moral  view  of  the  boycott. 

Mr.  Darrow,  by  declaratory  “interro- 
gations,” introduced  the  Boston  tea 
party  and  the  refusal  of  colonial  women 
to  wear  British  goods  in  the  revolu- 
tionary period  as  instances  of  boycot- 
ting -Which  no  one  in  these  parts  and 
day  is  wont  to  adversely  criticize. 

Crawford  Called. 

A bit  of  a surprise  was  occasioned 
yesterday  morning,  when  Attorney 
Darrow  came  over  from  a -whispered 
conference  with  the  other  miners’  at- 
torneys and  called  out  “J.  L.  Craw- 
ford.” 

Mr.  Crawford  is  president  of  the 
People’s  Coal  company,  which  was  one 
of  the  very  few  companies  which  op- 
erated to  any  considerable  extent  dur- 
ing the  strike. 

Mr.  Darrow  wanted  to  secure  from 
Mr.  Crawford  a statement  of  what  he 
gets  for  the  product  of  his  mine.  Mr. 
Crawford  avoided  direct  answers,  al- 
leging that  he  had  not  received  any 
returns  since  October,  and  could  not 
remember  the  figures. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  the  witness  to 
give  his  best  estimate  of  what  he  got 
for  coal  sold  at  retail  and  at  wholesale. 
Attorneys  Burns,  Warren  and  Torrey, 
In  turn  objected  to  the  question,  alleg- 
ing it  was  irrelevant.  Mr.  Darrow  con- 
tended the  question  was  in  every  way 
pertinent  to  the  inquiry.  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh,  he  said,  had  stated  that  an  in- 
crease in  the  cost  of  labor  would  mean 
an  Increase  in  the  price  of  coal  and  a 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

ccnsequent  additional  burden  on  the 
backs  of  the  poor.  He  also  held  that 
the  mine  workers,  in  a sense,  we*  e 
partners  in  the  industry,  and  entitled 
to  a commensurate  share  in  the  prof- 
its. 

“Suppose  we  wish  to  show  up  every 
miner's  bank  account?”  suggested  Mr. 
Burns. 

“I  wish  you  would,”  said  Mr.  Dnr- 
row.  “It  would  take  very  few  minutes 
to  do  so.” 

City  Recorder  W.  L.  Connell,  of  the 
committee  of  independent  operators, 
was  here  heard  for  the  first  time  in 
the  sessions  of  the  commission. 

Pay  a Pair  Pate. 

“I  do  not  think,”  said  he,  “that  Mr. 
Darrow  can  point  out  where  we  have 
said  we  cannot  pay  a just  wage.  We 
pay  a fair  rate  of  wages.  Whether  we 
sell  coal  at  a loss  or  a profit  does  not 
enter  into  the  question  at  all.  Y/e  are 
not  here  to  show  our  bank  accounts 
to  Mr.  Darrow.  We  are  here  to  shew 
the  commission  we  are  paying  a fair 
rate  of  wages  for  work,  a rate  ihat  will 
fairly  compare  with  that  paid  other 
similar  labor  in  the  vicinity  of  our 
collieries.”  * 

Mr.  Darrow  could  only  say  to  this 
that  all  classes  of  labor  were  under- 
paid. 

Judge  Gray,  after  consulting  with  the 
other  commissioners,  said  they  would 
take  the  testimony  for  what  It  was 
worth. 

“The  profits  of  coal  mining,”  said  the 
judge,  “should  be  a criterion  of  the 
measure  of  wages,  but  it  is  not  the 
sole  criterion.  Agreeing  that  the  ques- 
tion of  wages  is  not  to  be  decided  by 
the  profits  of  the  employers,  we  will 
take  the  testimony.” 

Mr.  Crawford  admitted  that  he  sold 
coal  for  $20  a ton  In  New  York  during 
the  last  month  of  the  strike.  Judge 
Gray  declared  this  was  not  pertinent. 

He  shipped  his  coal  over  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  road, 
on  consignment,  he  said,  and  received 
65  per  cent,  of  the  selling  price.  In 
October,  when  he  got  his  last  returns 
from  the  railroad  company,  he  received, 
he  thought,  about  $2.50  a ton  average 
on  all  sizes.  Coal  sold  at  retail  for 
domestic  purposes,  brought  on  an  av- 
erage $3.25  a ton.  He  ships  about  900 
tons  a day. 

Attorney  Reynolds  wanted  to  cross- 
examine  Mr.  Crawford  to  show  to  the 
commission  and  the  public  how  the 
great  expense  of  mining  under  armed 
guards  and  the  keeping  of  miners  ac- 
counted for  the  $20  a ton  for  coal  dur- 
ing strike  times,  but  Judge  Gray  said 
the  commission  did  not  care  to  hear  it. 

Hazleton  Witnesses. 

Witnesses  from  the  mines  of  A.  Par- 
dee, in  the  Hazleton  region,  were  then 
examined. 

John  Sherback,  a miner  in  the  Cran- 
berry colliery,  told  that  he  makes  $10, 
$20  and  sometimes  $40  a month.  The 
air  is  so  bad  that  he  has  been  laid  up 


83 

for  three  days  at  a time  from  sickness 
and  headaches  resulting  therefrom.  He 
never  saw  a mine  inspector  in  the 
Pardee  mines.  He  admitted  he  would 
not  know  the  inspector  if  he  saw  him. 

Henry  Williams,  a 22-year-old  slate 
picker  who  lost  a leg  by  being  run 
over  by  a car  while  making  a coupling 
when  he  was  a driver  boy  at  the  age 
of  16,  told  that  the  company  not  only 
did  not  give  him  any  assistance,  but 
kept  his  wages  to  pay  his  father’s  debt. 

Andrew  McHugh,  a Cranberry  miner, 
stated  that  since  1900  he  has  been 
earning  from  $9  to  $9.60  a week.  The 
air  in  the  “Parlor”  vein,  where  he 
works,  he  said,  is  “rotten.”  The  other 
night,  he  went  on  to  say,  he  was  so 
sick  from  the  bad  air  that  he  laid 
down  behind  the  stove  when  he  went 
home,  being  too  sick  to  wash  himself. 
He  also  told  that  there  is  a company 
store  at  Cranberry.  Judge  Gray  asked 
him  if  he  was  compelled  to  deal  at 
the  company  store,  and  upon  receiving 
a negative  reply,  asked  why  he  dealt 
there.  The  witness  said  it  was  because 
he  was  in  debt  at  the  store  always  and 
could  not  get  cash  to  deal  at  another 
place. 

Attorney  Samuel  Dickson,  of  counsel 
for  the  Independent  operators  of  the 
lower  region,  was  present  yesterday 
and  asked  some  few  questions  on  cross- 
examination. 

Edward  Jackson,  John  D.  Gray  and 
John  D.  Allgood,  miners  from  the 
Storrs’  colliery  of  the  Delaware,  Lack- 
awanna and  Western  company,  were, 
in  turn,  examined  by  Attorney  James 
Shea  regarding  the  Increased  size  of 
cars  at  that  mine. 

The  Diamond  Car. 

They  told  that  the  old  Diamond  car, 
the  standard  for  this  region,  contained 
seventy-six  cubic  feet.  The  size  of  the 
cars,  as  they  were  being  replaced,  con- 
tinued to  grow,  and  last  year  a com- 
mittee, in  the  presence  of  mine  offi- 
cials, made  measurements  of  all  the 
cars  around  the  mine.  They  found 
some  that  with  six  inches  of  topping 
would  contain  eighty-six  cubic  feet. 
These  were  cars  from  which  the 
wooden  bottoms  were  removed  and  shet 
Iron  bottoms  put  in,  to  facilitate  a new 
system  of  automatic  dumping. 

The  company  paid  eighty-one  cents 
for  the  old  Diamond  car  In  the  ’70s 
and  early  ’80s.  The  price  gradually  in- 
creased to  ninety-five  and1  a half  cents. 
The  2%  per  cent,  raise,  in  1900,  increased 
the  price  to  ninety-eight  cents.  In  June, 
1901,  after  the  measurements  were 
taken,  a committee  of  the  miners  had 
a conference  with  General  Manager  E. 
E.  Loomis,  and  he  allowed  a cent  a car 
to  make  up  for  the  increased  cubic 
capacity  resulting  from  the  substitu- 
tion of  Iron  for  wooden  bottoms.  One 
of  the  witnesses  remarked  that  the  iron 
bottoms  could  have  been  placed  over 
the  wooden  bottoms,  but  the  company 
saw  fit  to  remove  the  wooden  bottoms. 
The  men  decided  not  to  accept  the  one 
cent  a car  increase,  because  It  was  not 


84 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


enough,  but  are  accepting  it  under  pro- 
test. 

On  cross-examination  by  Major  War- 
ren, it  was  shown  that  Mr.  Jackson’s 
net  earnings  in  1901  were  $1,066.94  and 
that  he  cleared  for  himself  $654.69,  his 
laborer  receiving  $412.25.  The  witness 
admitted  that  there  was  no  excessive 
docking  at  the  mine.  His  docking 
amounted  to  1%  per  cent.  Mr.  Gray’s 
net  earnings  were  shown  to  be  $568.48. 
Fie  worked  on  an  average  about  six 
hours  a day. 

Comparatively  Peaceful. 

Rev.  J.  J.  O’Donnell,  assistant  priest 
at  Olyphant,  testified  that  that  com- 
munity was  comparatively  peaceful 
during  the  strike.  He  saw  only  one 
case  of  drunkenness  and  heard  of  four 
saloons  that  closed  up  because  of  lack 
of  patronage.  There  were  fifty-two 
licensed  saloons  in  the  town,  he  said. 

The  only  case  of  disorder  he  wit- 
nessed during  the  strike  was  where  a 
deputy  chased  and  fired  seven  or  eight 
shots  at  a man  who  was  picking  flow- 
ers for  the  church.  The  Winston  mur- 
der, he  said,  was  greatly  deplored  by 
the  miners,  as  well  as  everyone  else. 
The  soldiers  were  strictly  disciplined  by 
Colonel  Watres  and  behaved  well.  One 
soldier,  who  discharged  a revolver 
where  there  were  forty  strikers,  was 
not  molested.  When  the  case  was  re- 
ported at  camp.  Colonel  Watres  severe- 
ly punished  the  soldier.  The  incident 
of  Board  Member  Stephen  Reap  lead- 
ing an  exodus  from  the  Catholic 
church,  because  of  the  presence  of  a 
non-union  man,  had  been  greatly  ex- 
aggerated, the  witness  declared,  and,  at 
all  events,  Mr.  Reap  had  made  humble 
apology. 

David  T.  Davis  took  the  stand  to 
complain  about  not  receiving  the  full 
10  per  cent,  increase  at  the  Taylor  mine 
of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  company.  He  is  receiving  only 
ninety-one  cents  a car,  and  claims  he 
should  be  receiving  ninety-six  and  a 
half  cents. 

On  cross-examination,  Major  War- 
ren secured  from  him  an  admission  that 
last  month  he  made  $75.82  for  seven- 
teen days'  and  nine  hours’  work.  His 
gross  earnings  were  $126.29;  supplies, 
$8.38 ; laborer,  $42.09;  net  earnings  of 
miner,  $75.82,  or  an  average  of  $4.23  ; 
day  of  ten  hours.  The  witness  furthe: 
admitted  that  he  usually  started  tc 
work  at  7 o’clock  a.  m.  and  got  througt 
at  1.30  p.  m. 

A Seven  Car  Shift. 

Edward  Kelly,  a Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  miner  from  the 
Holden,  had  a complaint  similar  to  that 
of  the  preceding  witness.  He  claimed 
he  was  receiving  only  ninety-one  cents 
and  should  be  receiving  ninety-six  and 
a half  cents.  He  also  objected  to  the 
company  trying  to  force  a seven  car 
shift  on  the  men  of  that  mine. 

On  cross-examination,  Major  Warren 
sought  to  show  that  the  veins  regulate 
the  prices  and  that  the  witness  is  re- 
ceiving what  is  allowed  for  cars  in  the 


vein  he  works  in.  The  company’s  sta- 
tistics, as  presented  by  Major  Warren, 
showed  that  the  wages  of  the  witness 
for  last  month  were  $3.27  a day,  or  $35.- 
42  for  108  hours. 

The  witness  had  a memorandum  of 
his  wages  for  the  last  two  weeks  he 
worked  and  read  it  to  the  commission. 
It  showed  that  he  sent  out  fifty-seven 
cars;  was  docked  twro  cars,  and  was 
credited  with  $50.05  gross.  His  supplies 
cost  him  $5.34.  This  left  him  $44.71  for 
himself  and  laborer.  This  represented 
eleven  and  a half  days’  work,  he  said. 

Judge  Gray  asked  the  witness  what 
he  meant  when  he  said  the  company 
was  trying  to  force  a seven-car  shift 
on  him.  The  witness  replied  that  it 
meant  that  the  company  wanted  to 
make  them  load  seven  cars  instead  of 
six. 

“You  are  paid  by  the  car?”  suggested 
Major  Warren. 

“Yes,”  the  witness  answered. 

“Do  you  get  all  the  cars  you  want?" 
Judge  Gray  inquired. 

“Yes,  more  than  we  want,”  the  wit- 
ness replied.  “They  want  us  to  load 
seven  cars,  but  the  men  at  that  shaft 
will  never  do  it.” 

“You  complain  sometimes  of  not  re- 
ceiving enough  cars  and  again  of  re- 
ceiving too  many,  don’t  you?”  inquired 
Judge  Grav. 

“If  wTe  were  paid  the  right  price  for 
them,  we  wouldn’t  complain  so  much,” 
said  the  witness.  “Anyhow',  six  cars  is 
enough  to  get  out  in  one  day.” 

Major  Warren  asked  the  witness  if  it 
was  to  be  understood  he  was  not  will- 
ing to  co-operate  with  the  company 
even  to  this  extent  in  helping  to  relieve 
the  coal  famine.  The  witness  said  he 
ought  to  get  more  pay. 

School  Statistics. 

John  W.  Griffith,  superintendent  of 
schools  at  Nanticoke,  a town  of  15.000 
inhabitants,  gave  testimony  along  the 
same  lines  as  that  of  Superintendents 
Taylor,  Phillips  and  Cummings,  w'ho 
w’ere  on  the  stand  Wednesday.  Only  4 
per  cent,  of  the  pupils  in  the  High 
school,  he  said,  are  children  of  miners, 
although  85  or  90  per  cent,  of  the  popu- 
lation is  made  up  of  miners  and  their 
families. 

Mr.  Torrey  cross-examined  Rev. 
Father  O'Donnell  at  the  afternoon  ses- 
sion. The  witness  stated  that  his  fatheT 
was  a miner,  and  that  he,  himself,  had 
worked  in  the  mines  from  the  time  he 
was  nine  until  he  was  thirteen.  He  de- 
clined to  state  what  salaries  are  paid 
priests  in  this  community. 

He  did  not  know  what  wages  were 
paid  Delaware  and  Hudson  miners  in 
Olyphant,  but  expressed  the  opinion 
that  their  lot  was  as  good  as  that  of 
any  miners  in  the  region. 

With  the  aid  of  “would  it  surprise  the 
wives  and  daughters  of  the  Olyphant 
miners  to  knotv,"  Mr.  Torrey  presented 
a statement  that  the  average  earnings 
of  miners  in  1901  at  the  Olyphant  No. 
2 was  $678.71;  at  the  Grassy  Island, 
$707,29,  and  at  the  Eddy  Creek,  $613.42. 


Mr.  Torrey  also  stated  that  the  Del- 
aware and  Hudson  company  would 
gladly  co-operate  w'ith  the  witness  in 
preventing  the  employment  of  boys  un- 
der the  legal  age. 

Referring  to  the  statement  of  the  wit- 
ness that  the  reports  of  strike  violence 
had  been  greatly  exaggerated  in  the 
newspapers  and  adducing  from  him  that 
the  papers  he  read  were  friendly  to  the 
miners’  cause,  Mr.  Torrey  asked  the 
witness  to  give  an  explanation,  if  he 
could,  of  what  prompted  the  exaggera- 
tions. The  witness  thought  it  was  be- 
cause the  reporters  got  the  information 
from  parties  who  wanted  the  reports 
exaggerated. 

At  this  juncture  occurred  the  col- 
loquy on  boycotting  related  previously. 

Change  of  Mine  Ton. 

Patrick  O’Eoyle,  a Carbondale  miner, 
gave  testimony  regarding  the  change  in 
the  mine  ton  from  2.240  pounds  to  2.800 
weight,  as  previously  described  several 
times. 

Mr.  Reynolds  pointed  out  that  there 
Pad  been  a forty  per  cent,  increase  in 
wages  since  that  time  and  a thirty-five 
per  cent,  decrease,  thirty  per  cent,  of 
the  increase  being  voluntarily  given  by 
the  companies. 

“And,  Mr.  Reynolds,”  interrupted 
Judge  Gray,  looking  at  a tablet  before 
him,  “1  have  just  figured  out  that  the 
increase  in  the  size  of  the  ton  from 
2,240  to  twenty-eight  hundred  weight, 
or  3,136  pounds,  is  just  forty  per  cent. 

The  miners  among  the  operators  ap- 
plauded vigorously.  The  judge  waited 
until  the  applause  had  subsided  and 
then  reminded  the  operators  that  dem- 
onstrations of  approval  or  disapproval 
on  their  part  were  forbidden. 

Thomas  Malone,  a miner  at  the  White 
Oak  colliery  of  the  Delaware  and  Hue- 
son  company,  made  comp’aint  of  being 
compelled  to  work  at  robbing  pillars 
for  sixty-nine  cents,  when  he  had  been 
making  74  cents  at  a breast.  Four  men 
working  in  a gang  made  only  $a9  in 
two  weeks.  The  four  men  fill  ten  cars 
a day. 

Mr.  Torrey  brought  out  that  the  w t- 
ness  had  worked  out  his  chamber  and 
was  told  that  on  account  of  their  being 
too  many  men  at  the  Wh'te  Oak  1m 
wmuld  have  to  take  a job  at  robbing 
pillars  or  quit.  The  w'itness  did  not  be- 
lieve there  were  too  many  men.  New 
men  are  being  hired  right  along,  he 
said. 

Three  Sizes  of  Cars. 

P.  J.  Rogan,  a Temple  Iron  company 
miner  at  the  Sterrick  Creek  collieries, 
testified  that  there  are  three  sizes  of 
cars  at  this  colliery,  sixty-six  cubic 
feet,  seventy  and  five-sixth  cubic  feet, 
and  eighty-six  and  three-eighths  cubic 
feet,  and  that  the  size  of  the  car  has 
grown  constantly  without  a correspond- 
ing increase  in  wages.  Fie  also  com- 
plained that  the  men  were  not  paid  for 
blasting  “black  head"  and  "slab,  im- 
purities that  must  be  removed  to  get 
out  the  coal. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


85 


On  cross-examination  he  admitted  in 
response  to  questions  by  Major  Warren, 
that  some  allowances  are  made  for 
working  out  the  impurities.  He  also 


would  not  deny  that  it  was  a fact  that 
he  was  docked  only  forty-five  cars  out 
of  1,326.  The  witness  denied  that  “black 
head”  and  “slab”  was  taken  into  con- 


sideration when  an  agreement  was 
made  about  the  price  per  car.  It  was 
shown  that  the  witness  and  his  laborer 
earned  $936.42  last  year. 


Proceedings  of  Friday,  Dec.  12. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec  13.] 


If  the  operators  have  anything  better 
to  offer  to  the  mine  strike  commission- 
ers than  some  of  the  testimony  adduced 
yesterday  by  cross-examination  of  min- 
ers’ witnesses  they  will  make  out  a 
very  strong  case. 

One  of  the  injustices  of  which  the 
miners  complain,  and  anent  which  they 
have  produced  no  end  of  testimony,  is 
that  they  do  not  receive  any  pay  for 
coal  jostled  off  a car  in  its  trip  from 
the  breast  to  the  breaker.  One  of  the 
miners’  witnesses  admitted  on  cross-ex- 
amination that  his  duty  is  to  gather  up 
this  coal  along  the  road  after  working 
hours  and  that  it  doesn’t  amount  to 
enough  to  reimburse  the  company  for 
what  he  is  paid  to  do  the  work. 

A witness  from  the  Silver  Brook  col- 
liery testified  on  direct  examination 
that  he  made  from  $40  to  $50  a month. 
When  confronted  with  the  company’s 
statistics,  he  had  to  admit  that  he  and 
his  two  boys  earned  $1,575  last  year,  and 
in  addition  to  this  he  gets  $15  a month 
rent  from  two  dwellings  that  he  owns. 
And,  at  that,  he  would  only  work  three- 
quarters  time. 

Another  witness  who  took  the  stand 
to  make  general  complaint  against  the 
Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre  Coal  com- 
pany, served  as  a means  of  very  ma- 
terially qualifying  the  miners’  claim 
that  dockage  runs  up  as  high  as  twelve 
per  cent.  On  cross-examination  it  was 
shown  that  the  dockage  was  only  nine- 
teen one-hundredths  of  one  per  cent. 

Even  President  Mitchell  was  made  to 
serve  as  a channel  for  introducing  tes- 
timony extremely  favorable  to  the  oper- 
ators. Mr.  Mitchell  had  presented 
tables  to  show  that  bituminous  “day 
wage”  mine  workers  received  fifty  per 
cent,  more  pay  than  those  of  like  em- 
ployment in  the  anthracite  regions.  At- 
torney Samuel  Dickson,  of  Philadel- 
phia, thought  that  Mr.  Mitchell  had  ref- 
erence to  all  classes  of  mine  workers 
and  proceeded  to  discount  Mr.  Mit- 
chell’s claim  by  reading  a list  of  miners 
employed  at  different  collieries  in  the 
Hazelton  region  and  showing  that  they 
earned  all  the  way  from  $4.66  to  $7.48 
a day.  The  evidence  was  in,  of  course, 
before  Mr.  Dickson’s  misunderstanding 
was  corrected. 

Place  Had  to  Be  Filled. 

A dozen  witnesses  were  put  on  to 
show  that  the  companies  are  not  living 
up  to  their  submission  agreement  that 
they  would  not  discriminate  against 
union  men  in  taking  back  old  employes. 
In  every  instance  it  was  shown  that  the 
place  of  the  man  who  was  refused  re- 
employment had  to  be  filled  during  the 
strike  to  preserve  the  company’s  prop- 
erty, and  that  the  man  who  was  put 


in  to  fill  the  place  is  still  working.  In 
most  cases,  too,  it  was  admitted  by  the 
witness  that  the  boss  had  told  him  he 
would  be  given  employment  as  soon  as 
a place  could  be  made  for  him.  One 
witness  admitted  he  had  been  promised 
a better  position  than  his  old  one  as 
soon  as  it  would  be  made  ready  by  the 
completion  of  some  construction  work 
now  under  way. 

An  eight-year-old  Slav  boy  who 
works  in  the  breaker  was  put  forward 
as  a “horrible  example”  of  the  miners’ 
sorry  condition.  A few  questions 
brought  out  the  fact  that  the  boy’s 
father  is  an  able-bodied  man,  working 
every  day.  Judge  Gray  declared  it  was 
the  fault  of  the  father  that  the  child 
was  in  the  breaker,  and  had  the  boy 
taken  from  the  stand. 

The  general  manager  of  one  of  the 
big  coal  companies  is  authority  for  the 
statement  that  the  hearings  will  not 
be  again  interrupted  by  negotiations 
for  amicable  adjustment.  It  is  not  only 
very  likely,  but  extremely  probable, 
that  the  questions  in  dispute  dur- 
ing the  strike,  which  were  submitted  to 
the  commission  will  be  settled  amic- 
ably, but  the  settlement  will  not  come 
until  after  the  operators  have  presented 
their  case.  To  avoid  the  ills  that  would 
come  of  a rehearsal  of  the  embittering 
features  of  the  strike,  the  operators  will 
not  go  deeply  into  the  matter  of  strike 
violence.  They  think  that  on  cross-ex- 
amination they  convinced  the  commis- 
sioners that  there  was  something  doing 
in  the  way  of  disorder  during  the  per- 
iod of  the  strike,  and  that  the  mine 
workers’  officials  did  not  exhaust  the 
possibilities  in  the  way  of  discouraging 
it.  At  all  events,  Judge  Grey,  speaking 
for  the  commission,  indicated  ve  y 
clearly,  more  than  once,  that  the  com- 
mission did  not  regard  this  matter  ps 
being  particularly  pertinent  to  the  in- 
quiry on  hand. 

Yesterday’s  proceedings  dragged  along 
without  particular  incident  of  interest 
until  President  Mitchell,  of  the  Mine 
Workers,  took  the  stand  at  4 o’clock, 
and  became  involved  in  a rather  ani- 
mated discussion  with  Attorney  James 
H.  Torrey,  of  counsel  for  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company. 

Mr.  Mitchell  presented  tables  he  had 
prepared  to  show  that  company  hands, 
or  men  employed  by  the  day,  received 
from  40  to  50  per  cent,  more  pay  in  the 
soft  coal  than  in  the  hard  coal  region, 
and  then  went  on  to  relate — that  it 
might  be  on  the  record — the  efforts  that 
were  made  to  adjust  the  1902  disputes 
without  resorting  to  a strike. 

The  answers  made  by  the  coal  road 
presidents  to  the  invitations  to  meet 
the  United  Mine  Workers'  representa- 


tives in  conference  were  referred  to  in 
Mr.  Mitchell’s  recital. 

Judge  Gray  asked  if,  in  refusing  to 
deal  with  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
the  coal  road  presidents  agreed  to  treat 
with  their  employes  through  other  com- 
mittees. Mr.  Mitchell  said  it  was  his 
recollection  that  they  did  not. 

Judge  Gray  further  inquired  as  to 
what  had  been  done  on  the  miners'  side 
to  conform  to  the  provision  of  the 
notice  posted  at  the  end  of  the  1900 
strike  that  the  companies  would  adjust 
grievances  with  their  employes  “as 
heretofore.” 

"What  It  Meant. 

“The  notice  read,”  said  Mr.  Mitchell, 
“that  the  companies  would  ‘take  up 
with  our  own  employes  the  adjustment 
of  grievances  as  heretofore.’  That 
meant  that  they  needn’t  take  them  up 
at  all.  The  men  here  have  told  me  it 
didn’t  mean  the  adjustment  of  griev- 
ances, because  ’heretofore’  the  com- 
panies had  not  been  adjusting  griev- 
ances.” 

“Did  any  committees  of  miners  ap- 
proach the  companies  to  have  adjust- 
ments made?”  asked  Judge  Gray. 

“Yes,”  replied  the  witness,  “but  they 
did  not  succeed  in  securing  adjust- 
ments.” 

“In  the  spring  of  1901,"  continued  Mr. 
Mitchell,  “Senator  Hanna,  Mr.  Fahy 
and  myself  tried  to  secure  conferences 
with  the  coal  road  presidents  on  this 
matter.  The  only  man  who  would  treat 
with  us  was  Chairman  Thomas,  of  the 
Erie.  After  an  hour's  discussion,  Mr. 
Thomas  agreed  that  it  should  be  under- 
stood that  the  notices  meant  that  the 
companies  would  deal  with  committees 
of  their  employes.  Afterwards,  he  in- 
formed me  that  he  wanted  it  under- 
stood he  was  talking  only  for  his  own 
company. 

Commissioner  Clark  asked  if  the  con- 
duct of  the  officials  of  the  companies 
tended  to  encourage  or  discourage  these 
adjustment  conferences.  Mr.  Mitchell 
replied  that  it  was  such  as  tended  to 
discourage  them.  Commissioner  Clark 
asked  if  the  committees  were  received 
in  a cordial  spirit.  Mr.  Mitchell  said 
there  was  no  discourtesy  shown. 

Mr.  Torrey,  at  this  juncture,  read  ex- 
cerpts from  the  answers  of  the  coal 
road  presidents,  above  referred  to.  to 
show  that  they  stipulated  they  would 
deal  with  committees  of  their  employes. 

“Yes,  as  individuals,”  remarked  Mr. 
Mitchell,  when  Mr.  Torrey  finished 
reading  and  inquired  of  him  if  the  re- 
plies did  not  set  forth  clearly  that  the 
companies  agreed  to  adjust  grievances 
with  their  own  employes. 

“Is  that  your  construction  of  the 


86 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


meaning  of  those  letters?”  asked  Mr. 
Torrey,  with  a touch  of  Impatience  ex- 
pressed in  his  tones. 

‘‘That’s  my  interpretation,”  said  Mr. 
Mitchell. 

‘‘Then  you  can  bring  yourself,  you 
would  want  us  to  understand,”  said 
Mr.  Torrey,  ‘‘to  draw  such  a narrow  in- 
terpretation of  the  provisions  of  those 
letters?” 

“I  have  given  you  my  interpreta- 
tion,” said  Mr.  Mitchell. 

Mr.  Torrey’s  Reply. 

"Then,  I want  to  say,”  declared  Mr. 
Torrey,  slamming  on  the  table  the 
pamphlet  from  which  he  had  read  the 
replies,  "you  ought  to  do  something  for 
your  powers  of  interpretation.” 

Further  exchanges  disclosed  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Mr.  Torrey  did 
not  have  the  same  comprehension  of 
what  was  to  be  implied  by  the  word 
"individuals.”  Mr.  Torrey,  it  would  ap- 
pear, understood  that  it  meant  “one 
man  at  a time."  Mr.  Mitchell’s  idea, 
as  he  explained,  was  that  treating  with 
the  employes  as  individuals  did  not 
mean  this.  It  meant  that  they  would 
not  be  treated  with  as  an  organized 
body. 

Mr.  Torrey  quoted  President  Trues- 
dale’s  reply,  in  which  it  was  stated  ex- 
plicitly that  the  company  would  deal 
with  committees  representing  any  or 
all  their  employes.  Mr.  Mitchell  criti- 
cized this  limitation,  saying  the  com- 
pany had  no  more  right  to  prescribe 
that  the  men  should  not  have  a repre- 
sentative from  outside  their  own  num- 
ber, than  the  miners  at  the  commission 
hearings  should  prescribe  that  the  coal 
road  presidents  would  have  to  plead 
their  own  case,  instead  of  having  Mr. 
Torrey  do  it.  Mr.  Torrey  remarked  that 
the  companies  probably  wouldn’t  object 
to  their  employes  having  counsel  to 
represent  them  in  the  conferences,  as 
far  as  a lawyer’s  province  extends. 

The  incident  closing  thus,  Attorney 
Dickson  proceeded  to  challenge  the 
comparisons  Mr.  Mitchell  had  made 
between  the  soft  coal  and  hard  coal 
regions,  by  reading  figures  showing 
daily  wages  of  contract  miners  at  Sil- 
ver Brook  and  Hazle  Brook  to  be  as 
high  in  some  instances  as  $6.40  and 
$7.48.  Mr.  Mitchell  interrupted  him  with 
the  explanation  that  contract  miners 
had  been  specifically  excluded  from  his 
comparisons  and  that  they  applied  only 
to  company  hands. 

Men  Took  Initiative. 

General  Wilson  questioned  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell as  to  how  the  strike  of  1902  had 
come  about  and  particularly  as  to  who 
initiated  it.  Mr.  Mitchell  briefly  re- 
viewed the  incidents  leading  up  to  the 
strike,  and  said  it  was  the  men,  them- 
selves, through  their  district  officers, 
who  took  the  initiative.  General  Wil- 
son said  he  would  question  the  district 
officers  further  on  this  matter  when 
they  come  on  the  stand.  There  is  no 
certainty  that  the  district  officers  will 
be  put  on  the  stand. 

William  Pine,  who  was  a Are  boss  for 


the  company,  testified  he  was  laid  off 
during  the  strike  and  refused  re-em- 
ployment at  its  close.  He  admitted  on 
cross-examination  that  he  agreed  to 
leave  the  union  and  stand  by  the  com- 
pany in  case  of  a strike  and  that  he 
failed  to  live  up  to  his  promise.  He 
said  there  were  eleven  other  men  at 
this  colliery  who  had  not  been  taken 
back. 

Z.  B.  Evans,  a Forty  Fort  miner, 
told  about  having  received  various  in- 
juries at  different  times  in  the  mines 
during  his  thirty-three  years’  experi- 
ence as  a mine  worker.  He  also  de- 
scribed how  the  heighth  of  the  “top- 
ping” was  decreased  by  the  long  trips 
the  cars  have  to  make  from  the  breast 
to  the  breaker. 

On  cross-examination  it  was  brought 
out  that  the  witness  was  president  of 
the  Forty  Fort  local  and  chairman  of 
the  grievance  committee,  and  that,  in 
1900,  he  told  Foreman  Reese  the  men 
would  not  work  unless  the  company 
discharged  a carpenter  named  Robinson 
who  refused  to  join  the  union. 

His  docking,  he  said,  on  re-direct  ex- 
amination, was  3%  cars  out  of  twenty- 
eight  during  a certain  two  weeks. 

Amount  of  Topping. 

M.  M.  Sweeney,  a miner  at  the  Ster- 
rick  Creek  colliery  of  the  Temple  Iron 
company,  testified  that  he  is  .equired 
to  put  on  ten  to  twelve  inches  "top- 
ping,” to  guarantee  that  there  will  be 
the  required  six  inches  “topping”  when 
the  car  reaches  the  breaker,  after  its 
run  of  more  than  a mile.  If  there  i*n't 
six  inches  “topping”  at  the  breaker  the 
miner  is  docked  a quarter  of  a car.  If 
six  inches  is  exceeded  the  company 
makes  no  allowance  to  the  miner.  He 
also  told  of  being  afflicted  with  asthma. 
On  cross-examination,  he  admitted  the 
miners  had  never  complained  to  the 
company  about  “topping.” 

Patrick  Walsh,  from  the  same  mine, 
who  is  badly  afflicted  with  miners' 
asthma,  went  on  the  stand.  No  oral 
testimony  was  necessary  to  tell  that  he 
is  seriously  affected. 

John  McGlone,  check  weighman  at 
No.  6 colliery  of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal 
company,  Dunmore,  gave  the  following 
statement  covering  the  period  between 
April  1,  1901  and  April  1,  1902: 

Number  tons  mined,  199,101;  number 
of  tons  miners  were  paid  for,  147,076; 
dirt  and  dockage,  52,025.  The  total  of 
147„076  tons  were  paid  for  at  68  cents 
a ton,  producing  $107,865.86  for  the 
miner  and  laborer.  The  expenses  were: 
Powder,  $9,814;  oil,  $800;  sharpening, 
$500;  cotton,  etc.,  $268.90;  total,  $11,- 
883.31;  net  earnings,  $95,982.55.  He  fig  - 
ured that  128  miners  made  an  average 
of  $417.14  a year,  and  128  laborers  an 
average  of  $332.64. 

Major  Warren  objected  to  this  testi- 
mony as  being  loose  and  inaccurate, 
and  not  of  any  use  to  the  commission. 
The  witness  was  questioned  at  lcngth 
as  to  how  he  gathered  the  data,  and 
when  it  was  found  that  some  of  it  was 
estimates  of  his  own,  It  was  agreed  to 


withdraw  him  for  the  present.  Presi- 
dent Mitchell  argued  to  the  commission 
that  the  figures  regarding  product  and 
total  wages  were  accurate  and  the  com- 
mission agreed  with  him. 

An  Unfair  System  He  Said. 

William  Mace,  of  Wilkes-Barre,  a 
miner  from  the  Hollenback  colliery  of 
the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre  Coai  com- 
pany, had  a complaint  to  make  about 
“topping.”  He  gave  it  as  his  opinion 
that  paying  by  the  car  was  unfair  and 
a constant  source  of  trouble.  The  only 
fair  way  of  paying  was  by  the  ton,  he 
maintained.  He  also  told  of  a re- 
arrangement since  the  last  strike,  by 
which  the  allowances  for  rock  were  re- 
duced. No  complaint  had  been  made 
to  the  company.  The  men  decided  to 
wait  until  the  commission  made  its  re- 
port, before  taking  any  action. 

The  working  of  the  “court  house” 
was  also  discussed  at  length  by  this 
witness.  The  foreman  and  a commit- 
tee of  miners  sort  over  the  coal  in  a 
car,  clean  out  all  the  impurities  that 
escaped  the  miners’  attention,  and  thus 
determine  what  is  the  exact  percentage 
of  impurities.  The  witness  declared 
that  there  was  neither  “judge,  jury  nor 
justice”  in  the  colliery  court  house.  The 
chief  complaint  was  that  the  coal  re- 
maining after  the  impurities  were  re- 
moved was  not  also  weighed.  Attorney 
McClintock  explained  that  it  was  un- 
important to  ascertain  the  weight  of 
coal,  as  the  men  are  paid  by  the  car. 
The  “court  house”  test,  he  said,  is  to 
determine  the  proportion  of  impurities 
per  car.  This  regulates  the  do  -kage. 

Explained  the  Incident. 

Mr.  McClintock  presented  a statement 
that  the  total  dockage  at  the  Hollen- 
back last  year  was  only  19-190  of  one 
per  cent.  He  also  showed  that  the  wit- 
ness earned  $548.84  in  218  shifts.  If  he 
had  worked  the  255  days  that  the  mine 
worked,  he  would  have  made  $640.05. 
He  lost  considerable  time  because  of 
his  duties  as  chairman  of  the  griev- 
ance committee  of  the  local. 

Mr.  McClintock  sought  to  show  that 
the  witness  had  asked  the  foreman  in 
November,  1901,  to  discharge  ten  men 
because  they  refused  to  pay  their  dues 
in  the  union  and  that  during  the  last 
strike  he  and  another  man  called  at 
the  house  of  Fireboss  John  Joseph,  in 
the  middle  of  the  night,  to  threaten 
and  intimidate  him. 

The  witness  denied  the  first  allegation 
in  toto.  As  to  the  second,  he  explained 
that  it  was  only  10  30  at  night  when 
the  call  was  made  at  Joseph’s  house. 
“We  only  asked  his  brother-in-law,” 
said  the  witness,  "if  he  would  please  be 
so  kind  as  to  step  out  on  the  porch  and 
talk  to  us  just  for  a few  minutes.  We 
sat  on  the  steps,  and  in  about  eight  or 
ten  minutes  John  Joseph  came  out  with 
a shot  gun,  and  pointing  it  at  me,  said: 
‘Billy  H.,  you  get  out  from  here  or 
I’ll  blow  your  head  off  to  hell.’  Then 
we  went  away.” 

Mr.  McClintock  asked  the  witness 


what  they  wanted  to  see  Joseph  about 
at  that  time  of  the  night. 

“We  just  wanted  to  talk  to  him,  ’ 
said  the  witness. 

“Talk  to  him  about  what?”  said  Mr. 
McClintock. 

"Oh,  about  the  strike  and  one  thing 
or  another,”  the  witness  replied. 

James  Driesbach,  who  was  a watch- 
man at  No.  5 colliery,  complained  of  not 
being  taken  back  after  the  strike.  Mr. 
McClintock  got  him  to  admit  that  an- 
other man  was  put  in  his  place  during 
the  strike,  and,  further,  that  the  as- 
sistant told  him  he  would  probablv  get 
his  job  back  before  long  as  the  man 
who  was  in  his  place  was  a “pigeon- 
toed  fellow”  and  likely  wouldn’t  be  able 
to  stand  the  cold.  The  witness  ac- 
knowledged that  the  company  couldn't 
treat  him  any  fairer  than  it  did. 

William  Nesbitt,  who  was  the  fan- 
engineer  at  the  same  mine,  quit  when 
the  steam  men  were  called  out,  and 
was  not  re-employed.  He  admitted, 
however,  that  the  superintendent  told 
him  he  was  to  get  the  fan  engine  at  the 
new  air  shaft. 

Longmower’s  Complaint. 

Henry  Longmower,  president  of  the 
No.  5 local,  who  was  an  engineer  at  an 
inside  slope,  had  a similar  complaint  to 
make  as  the  two  preceding  witnesses. 
The  company,  however,  has  not  prom- 
ised to  take  him  back.  He  is  charged 
with  having  directed  a barber  in  &outh 
Wilkes-Barre  not  to  shave  the  men 
working  at  the  No.  5 during  the  strike. 

James  Kearney  and  Edward  Kett- 
rick,  two  more  steam  men  from  the  No. 
5,  testified  similarly  to  the  others  who 
had  struck  and  were  refused  re-em- 
ployment. Other  men  were  put  in  their 
places,  it  was  shown,  and  these  other 
men  still  retained  their  jobs.  Both  wit- 
nesses admitted  that  the  company  had 
always  treated  them  fairly. 

Attorney  Lenahan  next  called  to  the 
stand  an  8-year-old  breaker  boy  from 
Smithville,  Stanley  Gustick  by  name. 
He  began  working  three  weeks  ago  at 
the  Butler  Coal  company’s  colliery  in 
Pittston  township,  which  is  two  miles 
from  his  home.  Major  Warren  protest- 
ed that  the  Butler  company  is  not  a 
party  to  the  hearing  and  its  employes 
should  not  be  heard.  When  it  devel- 
oped that  the  boy  did  not  understand 
vised  that  he  be  withdrawn,  which  was 
done.  “The  commissioners  see  how 
small  he  is,”  said  Judge  Gray,  “and  will 
agree  that  he  is  too  small  to  be  work- 
ing In  the  breaker.  His  father  should 
not  have  him  in  the  breaker,”  the  judge 
added. 

The  examination  of  Lehigh  Valley 
Coal  company  employes  was  then  taken 
up.  Mr.  Lenahan  conducted  the  direct 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

examination,  and  Major  Warren  the 
cross-examination. 

M.  Clark,  a pillar  miner  at  the 
Heidleberg  colliery,  near  Avoca,  testi- 
fied that  the  cars  there  are  10x4x2%, 
and  that  the  docking  averages  5 to  7 
per  cent. 

He  worked  188  9-10  days  and  made 
$563.80,  according  to  the  compilation  of 
the  company.  The  witness  averred  that 
a part  of  that  represented  a payment 
he  made  his  laborer,  the  compa.ny 
having  failed  to  deduct,  through  some 
error. 

Gathers  Up  the  Coal. 

William  Powers,  a runner,  testified 
that  he  was  engaged  by  the  company 
to  gather  up  the  coal  that  fell  from 
the  cars.  He  said  it  filled  from  one  to 
four  cars  a week.  The  company’s  at- 
torney let  it  go  at  that.  It  was  brought 
out  that  the  witness  was  discharged 
last  Wednesday  for  insubordination. 
The  witness’  statement  of  the  trouble 
was  that  the  fireboss  started  to  hit  him 
with  a sprag,  and  he  put  his  hand  on 
the  boss’  neck  and  kicked  the  sprag 
out  of  his  hand. 

Robert  Hughes,  a miner  from  the 
Morgan  B.  Williams  & Co.  Red  Ash 
colliery,  near  Wilkes-Barre,  was  called, 
but  as  that  company  is  not  a party  to 
the  hearing,  Judge  Gray  advised  that 
he  be  not  examined. 

Justice  of  the  Peace  George  Smith,  of 
Blakely,  testified  that  the  cars  at  the 
Ontario  colliery  of  the  Elk  Hill  Coal 
and  Iron  company  vary  in  capacity 
from  92  to  119  cubic  feet,  including  the 
six  inches  topping.  One  car  is  8 feet  7 
inches  by  4 feet  2 inches  by  2 feet  1 
inch.  Another  is  8 feet  10  inches  by  4 
feet  3 inches  by  2 feet  2 inches. 

The  witness  did  not  secure  re-em- 
ployment  after  the  strike.  His  place 
was  taken  up  by  the  installation  of  an 
engine  during  the  strike.  The  boss  told 
him  he  would  give  him  a place  as  soon 
as  he  could.  The  last  time  he  saw  the 
boss,  the  latter  said:  "I  guess  you  will 

have  to  work  for  John  Mitchell  a while 
longer.” 

Attorney  J.  E.  Burr  cross-examined 
him  and  sought  unsuccessfully  to  have 
the  witness  agree  that  not  10  per  cent, 
of  the  cars  have  six  inches  “topping” 
when  they  reach  the  breaker;  that  out 
of  700  cars  sent  out  by  the  miners  in  a 
day,  the  rock  and  slate  will  amount  to 
180  cars,  or  25  per  cent.,  and  that  the 
culm  that  will  come  out  of  it  amounts 
to  12%  per  cent.  The  witness  did  not 
know  whether  or  not  these  figures  were 
correct.  The  witness  testified  that  he 
knew  the  docking  amounted  to  7 or  8 
per  cent. 

Isaac  Cheenev,  a 63-year-old  Ontario 
miner,  did  not  get  a job  after  the 


87 

strike.  The  boss  said  he  would  give 
him  a place  when  he  could. 

Way  It  Was  Done. 

Thomas  Dureemer,  an  ex-clerk  for 
the  Silverbrook  Coal  company,  ex- 
plained how  the  company  “manipu- 
lated”— as  Mr.  McCarthy  put  it — the 
10  per  cent  advance,  giving  illustra- 
tions similar  to  those  previously  pre- 
sented. 

John  Williams,  whose  brother-in-law 
was  one  of  the  fifty-eight  victims  of  the 
Twin  shaft  disaster,  told  of  that  catas- 
trophe. He  had  not  even  the  slightest 
recollection  of  the  company  making  any 
effort  to  rescue  the  men  or  recover  the 
bodies. 

Mr.  Darrow  explained  to  the  court 
that  the  witness  was  not  put  on  with 
the  view  of  having  the  company  criti- 
cized for  not  making  any  effort  at  res- 
cue. “Of  course,”  said  Mr.  Darrow, 
“we  are  not  concerned  as  to  how  a 
near  relative  of  a victim  viewed  the 
effort  of  the  company  to  accomplish  a 
rescue.  The  purpose  of  calling  the  wit- 
ness was  simply  to  show  the  dangers 
attendant  upon  mining.” 

, Alexander  Samuels  and  Frank  Old- 
field, two  Wilkes-Barre  hod  carriers, 
who  were  formerly  miners  testified  that 
hod  carriers  receive  twenty-five  cents 
an  hour;  stonemasons,  thirty-seven  and 
one-half  cents  an  hour,  and  bricklayers 
fifty  cents  an  hour,  with  time  and  a 
half  for  overtime  and  double  time  for 
Sundays  and  holidays,  and  that  they  all 
work  eight  hours.  Each  thought  a 
miner  ought  to  receive  at  least  $5  a day. 

August  Baker,  of  Hazelbrook,  a con- 
tract miner  for  J.  S.  Wentz  & Co.,  told 
a sorry  story  of  the  condition  of  the 
company  houses,  there,  and  that  if  the 
men  want  to  avoid  bad  places  in  the 
mines  they  have  to  deal  in  the  high- 
priced  company  store.  His  wages,  he 
said,  were  from  $40  to  $50  a month. 

Owns  a Double  House. 

On  cross-examination  Mr.  Dickson 
brought  out  the  fact  that  the  witness 
Is  not  compelled  to  live  in  a company 
house,  as  he  is  drawing  $15  a month 
rent  from  a double  dwelling  house  of 
his  own,  and  that  the  only  high-priced 
thing  he  could  specify  was  shoe  black- 
ing which  he  bought  for  five  cents  in 
Hazelton  and  had  to  pay  ten  cents  for 
in  the  company  store. 

Mr.  Dickson  then  produced  a state- 
ment of  his  earnings  in  1901,  which  ne 
said  he  would  verify  by  receipts,  it 
showed  that  Baker  and  his  two  bov« 
one  19  and  the  other  17,  in  1901,  drew 
$1,565.77  in  wages,  and  that  the  father 
had  not  worked  as  many  days  as  he 
might,  particularly  the  day  immed- 
iately following  pay  day. 


88 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Dec.  13. 

[ From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec.  15.] 


Two  sessions  of  the  commission  were 
held  Saturday.  Most  of  the  time  was 
taken  up  with  testimony  regarding  con- 
ditions at  the  Philadelphia  and  Reading 
collieries.  These  witnesses  had  little  to 
complain  of  other  than  that  they  are 
not  being  taken  back.  There  were  some 
allegations  of  local  injustices,  but  on 
the  whole,  the  witnesses  all  agreed  the 
company  treats  its  men  fairly. 

President  Mitchell  was  again  on  the 
stand  for  further  cross-examination. 

The  presentation  of  the  wage  state- 
ments of  the  Scranton  Coal  company 
was  the  first  business  that  came  before 
the  commission  at  the  morning  session. 
The  statements  were  presented  by  John 
B.  Kerr,  vice  president  and  general 
counsel  of  the  New  York,  Ontario  an 
Western  railroad,  which  company  con 
trols  the  Scranton  company. 

The  statements  show  that  during 
the  year  ending  April  30,  1902,  the  com- 
pany operated  nine  collieries.  Two 
worked  only  eleven  months  on  account 
of  fire  and  flooding  and  one  but  eleven 
and  a half  months  on  account  of  the 
strike. 

The  average  earnings  of  miners  per 
year  were  $538.90  and  of  mine  laborers 
$313.76.  Average  per  breaker  day  of 
ten  hours,  for  miners,  $3.13,  and  for 
miners’  laborers,  $1.82.  The  wages  of 
other  employes  range  from  $1,200  per 
year  for  engineers  down  to  $150  for 
breaker  boys. 

Mitchell  Recalled. 

President  Mitchell  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  was  called  to  the  stand 
for  further  cross-examination  by  James 
H.  Torrey,  of  counsel  for  the  D.  & H. 
company,  regarding  the  tables  submit- 
ted by  Mr.  Mitchell  the  day  before,  in 
which  it  was  shown  that  the  soft  coal 
day  wage  men  received  from  40  to  50 
per  cent  more  pay  than  the  day  wage 
men  in  the  anthracite  region. 

Mr.  Torrey’s  questions  tended  to 
show  that  the  comparisons  were  not 
fairly  made;  that  the  computations 
were  based  on  the  most  favorable  fig- 
ures for  the  one  region  and  the  most 
unfavorable  in  the  other. 

Mr.  Torrey  next  sought  to  bring  Mr. 
Mitchell  to  task  for  inaugurating  a 
strike  for  better  wages  without  first  de- 
termining by  the  best  means  at  hand, 
whether  or  not  a demand  for  better 
wages  was  warranted.  Mr.  Torrey 
asked  if  it  was  not  true  that  President 
Baer  twice  offered  to  allow  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell and  the  miners’  accountants  to  go 
over  the  company’s  books  prior  to  the 
strike,  and  that  the  offer  was  not  ac- 
cepted. Mr.  Mitchell  answered  that  he 
was  distinctly  given  to  understand 
that  Mr.  Baer  was  speaking  for  his  own 
company  only. 

“If  it  is  made  to  appear,”  said  Mr. 
Torrey,  “that  the  miners  did  receive 
fair  wages  in  1901,  don't  you  think  you 


accepted  a serious  responsibility  in  not 
examining  the  company’s  books,  when 
you  were  given  that  privilege,  and 
thereby  ascertain  whether  or  not  the 
demand  of  the  men  was  well  founded?” 

“We  proposed  that  others  and  disin- 
terested parties,”  replied  Mr.  Mitchell, 
“should  look  into  these  matters  and  ex- 
amine the  conditions  before  the  strike, 
and  when  I did  that  the  responsibility 
was  removed.  You  must  bear  in  mind 
that  I was  opposed  to  the  strike,  be- 
cause it  was  the  beginning  of  summer, 
and  I was  willing  to  wait  and  see  if  an 
amicable  adjustment  could  be  made.” 

“And  because  it  was  pretty  far  re- 
moved from  a political  campaign,”  sug- 
gested Mr.  Torrey. 

Didn’t  Enter  Into  It. 

“The  question  of  a political  campaign 
uid  not  enter  into  the  matter  at  all,” 
said  Mr.  Mitchell.  “We  were  estab- 
lishing some  degree  of  confidence  in  our 
organization  that  might  work  out  an 
adjustment.  If  that  didn’t  work  out,  I 
would  have  advised  a cessation  of  la- 
bor.” 

Questioned  by  I.  H.  Burns,  of  counsel 
for  the  independents  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  union  could  guarantee  that 
non-union  men  would  not  be  interfered 
with  if  a contract  was  made  with  the 
union,  Mr.  Mitchell  replied  that  this 
matter  would  be  more  opportunely  dis- 
cussed when  the  companies  came  to 
negotiate  a contract  with  the  union. 

When  asked  if  the  union  had  done 
anything  to  discipline  men  who  had 
committee*  violence  during  the  strike, 
Mr.  Mitchei!  replied  that  it  would  not 
be  fair  to  prejudice  the  case  of  men 
charged  with  violence  before  the  court 
passed  upon  the  matter. 

Andrew  Shalgoz,  a Hazlebrook  miner 
employed  by  J.  S.  Wentz  & Co.,  was 
the  first  witness.  He  testified  that  he 
paid  $4.75  a month  rent  for  a company 
house,  of  three  rooms,  that  it  did  not 
keep  out  the  cold  or  rain  and  all  in  all 
was  a rather  undesirable  kind  of  hab- 
itation. He  has  worked  in  the  mines 
fourteen  years,  was  buried  under  a fall 
of  coal  once  and  badly  Injured,  and  at 
another  time  lost  one  of  his  eyes  by 
being  hit  by  a piece  of  flying  coal.  The 
company  gave  him  no  assistance  during 
the  times  he  was  laid  up  with  injuries. 
His  wages  since  1900  averaged  $9  a 
week.  Dockage  amounts  to  five  cars  in 
100.  There  is  no  wagon  road  connecting 
Hazlebrook  with  the  outside  world  and 
the  company’s  store  is  the  only  one  in 
the  town,  consequently  it  is  necessary 
for  the  Hazlebrook  people  to  trade  in 
the  company  store. 

Are  Near  Hazleton. 

On  cross-examination,  the  witness 
admitted  to  Mr.  Dickson  that  Hazle- 
ton, Freeland  and  other  nearby  towns 


can  be  reached  from  Hazlebrook  by 
train;  also  that  he  never  made  com- 
plaint to  the  company  about  the  condi- 
tion of  the  house  he  lived  in.  Mr.  Dick- 
son asked  him  if  it  was  not  a fact  that 
in  1901  he  drew  $544.04  in  cash  earnings. 
The  witness  did  not  think  it  was  that 
much. 

He  also  developed  on  cross-examina- 
tion that  the  Hazlebrook  strikers  drove 
off  the  men  imported  by  the  company 
to  take  the  place  of  the  striking  steam 
men  and  as  a result  of  this  the  mine 
was  flooded.  The  lower  levels  are  still 
under  water. 

John  Deirmney,  of  Hazlebrook,  tes- 
tified that  he  quit  work  in  the  mines 
two  years  ago  because  of  his  health 
breaking  down,  and  that  now  he  has 
to  work  in  the  breaker  for  98  cents  a 
day. 

William  Launer,  of  Philadelphia,  na- 
tional secretary  of  the  Glass  Blowers’ 
union,  testified  that  since  a trade 
agreement  was  made  between  his  or- 
ganization and  the  glass  manufactur- 
ers there  have  been  no  strikes. 

Paul  Hemhand,  ten  years  old,  a 
breaker  boy  at  the  D.  & H.  Co.’s  Balti- 
more, No.  5 colliery  in  Wilkes-Barre 
was  called  to  the  stand. 

“Do  you  understand  what  an  oath 
is?”  inquired  Judge  Gray,  looking  down 
kindly  at  the  diminutive  lad. 

“Yes,  sir,”  came  the  reply  in  unfalt- 
ering voice. 

“What  happens  to  boys  who  don’t 
tell  the  truth?”  asked  the  judge. 

“Go  to  hell,”  quickly  retorted  the 
boy. 

This  answer  was  not  taken  by  the 
judge  to  be  either  a mandatory  or  di- 
rectory declaration. 

Received  28  Cents. 

The  lad  testified  he  has  worked  in  the 
breaker  for  a year  and  that  he  receives 
64  cents  a day.  Last  month,  he  said, 
the  company  kept  the  rent  out  of  his 
pay  and  he  received  only  28  cents.  He 
knew  of  another  boy,  Mike  Curry,  who 
received  only  one  cent  pay  last  month, 
the  company  having  retained  his  fath- 
er’s rent  bill. 

The  boy  exhibited  his  fingers  to  show 
that  the  nails  were  worn  below  the 
quick  by  slate  picking.  They  were 
worse  than  this  he  explained,  before  he 
got  a “hump”  place,  where  the  run  of 
coal  is  not  so  heavy. 

In  cross-examination  Mr.  Torrey 
showed  that  the  boy’s  father  works 
steadily  in  the  Shelden  Axle  Works 
and  that  his  older  brother  is  employed 
in  the  Dorrance  colliery.  There  are 
four  children  in  the  family,  two  boys 
and  two  girls.  One  brother  is  younger 
than  he.  The  boy  admitted  that  he 
misrepresented  his  age  to  the  company 
when  he  looked  for  employment. 

Eight  witnesses  then  told  about  con- 
ditions at  the  collieries  of  the  Phila- 
delphia and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  com- 


pany,  of  which  George  F.  Baer  is  pres- 
ident. Their  chief  complaint  was  that 
they  were  being  discriminated  against 
because  they  belong  to  the  union.  At- 
torney Simon  P.  Wolverton,  on  cross- 
examination,  brought  out  the1  fact  that 
by  reason  of  the  steam  men’s  strike, 
six  collieries  were  flooded  and  3,000  or 
more  men  are  idle  as  a result.  Some  of 
the  witnesses  who  alleged  discrimina- 
tion were  steam  men  who  went  on 
strike. 

Joseph  Fetzger,  who  was  a hoisting 
engineer  at  the  Reliance  colliery,  in 
Mt.  Carmel,  for  twenty-six  years,  did 
not  get  his  job  back  after  the  strike. 
When  he  applied  for  re-instatement,  the 
foreman  told  him  he  would  be  sent  for. 
He  wasn’t  sent  for,  and  went  to  the 
district  superintendent.  The  latter  told 
him  he  was  an  agitator  and  would  not 
be  re-employed.  He  then  went  to  Div- 
ision. Superintendent  Sheffler  and  was 
told  he  had  had  too  much  to  say  dur- 
ing the  strike.  He  next  went  to  the 
general  superintendent  and  was  told 
there  was  no  place  for  him,  as  his  po- 
sition had  been  filled.  The  witness  in- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

sisted  that  he  was  being  discriminated 
against  because  the  engines  he  was 
working  at  were  not  run  during  the 
strike,  and  the  man  who  was  put  in 
his  place  was  a striker  from  another 
colliery. 

He  worked  twelve  hours  a day  every 
day  in  the  week  and  never  had  a Sun- 
day or  holiday  off.  He  was  paid  $63.80 
a month. 

An  Increase  of  16  Per  Cent. 

On  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Wolver- 
ton, it  was  shown  that  the  Reading 
company,  after  the  1900  strike,  in- 
creased the  wages  of  its  men  sixteen 
per  cent,  instead  of  ten  per  cent,  as  the 
settlement  notice  provided.  The  wit- 
ness admitted  that  the  company  had  al- 
ways dealt  fairly  with  him  except  in 
the  instance  complained  of.  All  the 
other  witnesses  made  similar  admis- 
sions. 

Patrick  Welsh,  a Schuylkill  miner, 
complained  of  a reduction  in  the  al- 
lowances for  repair  work.  Jacob  Par- 
nell, vice  president  of  the  Silverton  lo- 
cal, averred  that  he  was  refused  re-em- 


89 

ployment  because,  as  the  boss  put  it, 
“he  had  too  big  a mouth  during  the 
strike.”  James  Clark,  of  Ashland,  told 
that  a number  of  fire  bosses,  engineers 
and  firemen  in  his  region  were  refused 
re-employment,  and  that  when  a com- 
mittee went  to  the  division  superintend- 
ent to  see  about  it,  they  could  get  no 
satisfaction. 

William  Lynch  told  that  the  cars  at 
the  Reading  collieries  have  increased  in 
size  twice  without  a corresponding  in- 
crease in  wages.  William  Grett,  from 
Silverton,  told  that  the  price  of  yard- 
age and  coal  had  been  reduced  after  the 
1900  strike.  John  E.  Doyle,  a fireman, 
testified  he  worked  twelve  hours  a day 
and  twenty-four  hours  every  other 
Sunday,  for  $9.50  a week.  He  shoveled 
forty  to  sixty  tons  of  coal  a day. 

The  last  witness  of  the  day  was  Allen 
Row,  15  years  of  age,  who  testified  that 
he  had  his  leg  wrenched  off  by  ma- 
chinery at  one  of  the  Pennsylvania 
company’s  breakers  and  never  received 
anything  from  the  company. 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Dec.  15. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Deo.  16.] 


With  one  more  witness,  National 
President  Samuel  Gompers,  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  who  is 
to  take  the  stand  today,  to  testify  to 
wage  earnings  in  general,  the  miners 
will  complete  their  case  in  chief  before 
the  mine  strike  commission.  The  dis- 
trict presidents  will  not  be  put  on  the 
stand. 

The  operators  will  open  their  case 
today  with  a general  statement  for  all 
the  respondents,  to  be  read  by  Hon. 
Simon  P.  Wolverton,  counsel  for  the 
Philadelphia  and  Reading  Coal  and 
Iron  company.  The  remainder  of  the 
week  will  be  taken  up  with  the  presen- 
tation of  testimony  from  the  operators’ 
side,  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  com- 
pany taking  the  lead.  On  Saturday 
the  commission  will  adjourn  over  the 
holidays,  to  meet  again  Monday,  Jan. 
5,  1903,  in  Philadelphia,  the  operators 
preferring  to  have  the  commission  sit  in 
that  city  while  hearing  their  side  of 
the  case,  and  a new  meeting  place  be- 
ing made  necessary  by  the  fact  that 
the  superior  court  meets  here  in  Janu- 
ary, in  the  room  in  which  the  commis- 
sion is  sitting. 

The  miners  will  ask  the  commission 
to  come  back  to  Scranton  to  hear  their 
rebuttal  testimony.  This  will  likely  be 
done. 

The  closing  testimony  of  the  miners 
consisted  of  complaints  from  more 
Philadelphia  and  Reading  and  Erie 
company  employes,  on  comparatively 
trivial  matters.  Attorney  John  J.  Mur- 
phy, Congressman  Charles  Brumm, 
Clarence  S.  Harrow  and  James  Shea 
conducted  the  examinations  for  the 
miners.  Attorney  S.  P.  Wolverton,  of 
the  Reading,  and  Major  Everett  War- 


ren, of  the  Erie,  did  the  bulk  of  the 
cross-examining. 

Silk  Mill  Girls. 

Four  small  girls  from  Dunmore,  who 
work  in  the  silk  mills,  some  of  them 
on  the  night  shift,  and  all  of  them  in 
defiance  of  the  law  against  child  labor, 
proved  somewhat  of  a disappointment 
as  witnesses.  It  was  intended  to  show 
to  the  commission  that  children  like 
these  are  taken  away  from  home  in- 
fluence and  made  to  do  very  arduous 
work  by  reason  of  their  fathers  not  be- 
ing able  to  earn  enough  in  the  mines 
to  support  their  families.  The  com- 
mission, however,  did  not  see  it  that 
way,  and  Judge  Gray  scathingly  re- 
buked the  fathers  who  “coined  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  little  children  into 
money  when  there  was  no  necessity 
for  it.”  He  declared  it  to  be  an  out- 
rage. The  names  of  the  little  girls’ 
fathers  were  taken  and  investigations, 
during  the  noon  recess,  disclosed  the 
fact  that  they  are  all  working  steadily 
and  making  on  an  average  of  about 
$100  a month,  each. 

As  the  day  was  drawing  to  a close, 
Henry  D.  Lloyd,  the  sociologist,  who  is 
one  of  the  miners’  representatives  be- 
fore the  commission,  sought  to  intro- 
duce a great  mass  of  data  on  the  econ- 
omics of  the  coal  business  by  reading 
reports  of  the  findings  of  various  com- 
missions since  1871,  and  articles  from 
different  publications  tending  to  show 
the  existence  of  a coal  trust  which 
stifles  competition,  keeps  up  prices  of 
coal  and  makes  mine  earnings  appear 
small  by  transferring  them,  through 
the  medium  of  exhorbitant  freight 
rates  to  the  earnings  of  its  railroad 
department, 


The  commission  hesitatingly  headr 
him  for  an  hour  and  a half,  against 
repeated  protests  of  the  operators’  at- 
torneys that  the  matter  was  wholly 
irrelevant.  Finally,  the  commission 
concluded  the  testimony  was  hardly 
relevant  unless  the  companies  made 
claim  that  they  could  not  afford  to  pay 
what  the  miners  are  asking.  At  Judge 
Gray’s  suggestion,  the  remainder  of 
Mr.  Lloyd’s  testimony  was  deferred 
until  after  the  operators’  side  has  been 
heard. 

Matter  of  Profit  and  Loss. 

The  operators’  side  averred  repeat- 
edly that  the  question  of  profit  and 
loss  was  in  nowise  before  the  com- 
mission, and  reminded  the  commission 
of  a decision  it  had  made  that  the  abil- 
ity of  the  employer  to  pay  was  no  just 
criterion  of  the  wages  a man  shall  re- 
ceive for  his  labor.  Judge  Gray  said 
the  commission  proposed  to  assume 
that  the  operators  were  able  to  pay  a 
just  wage.  This  was  satisfactory  to 
all  sides. 

One  of  the  miners’  witnesses  yester- 
day was  Rev.  Thomas  R.  Watkins,  the 
labor  candidate  for  recorder.  He,  with 
a number  of  other  Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  men,  told  about 
the  formation  of  the  Lackawanna 
union. 

The  stories  of  the  little  daughters  of 
miners,  who  work  in  the  silk  mills, 
were  truly  pitiful,  but,  if  Judge  Gray's 
sentiments  can  be  taken  as  a criterion 
of  how  the  commission  was  impressed 
by  their  recitals,  the  coal  companies,  in 
the  commissioners’  minds,  are  not  the 
culpable  parties.  One  of  the  girls  went 
to  work  during  the  strike,  and  pre- 
sumably the  strike  was  responsible  for 


Proceedings  of  the  anthracite 


90 


her  having  to  go  to  work.  In  two  other 
cases,  it  developed  that  the  girls' 
fathers  own  property.  Judge  Gray  de- 
clared unequivocally  and  with  a con- 
siderable show  of  indignation  that  it 
was  the  fault  of  the  fathers  that  the 
little  girls  were  at  work.  “I’d  like  to 
have  those  fathers  here,”  said  the 
Judge.  “I’d  like  to  ask  them  a few 
questions.” 

The  first  of  these  witnesses  was 
Theresa  McDermott,  aged  11,  whose 
father,  Michael  McDermott,  works  for 
the  Nay  Aug  Coal  company.  She  works 
in  a Dunmore  silk  mill  from  7 in  the 
morning  until  6 in  the  evening,  is  on 
her  feet  all  the  time  and  receives  $2  a 
week.  There  are  four  children  in  the 
family  and  she  is  the  second  oldest. 
The  oldest  is  a boy.  She  went  to  work 
during  the  strike  and  is  to  quit  next 
week. 

“It  is  very  creditable  to  her  father 
that  he  is  going  to  take  her  out  of  the 
mill,”  said  Judge  Gray. 

Anna  Denko,  14  years  of  age,  a Dun- 
more  girl,  works  in  a silk  mill  from  G.30 
in  the  evening  until  6.30  in  the  morn- 
ing, with  only  half  an  hour  at  mid- 
night for  rest  and  lunch.  She  lives  at 
No.  7,  and  has  to  walk  an  hour  going 
to  and  coming  from  her  work.  She  re- 
ceives 5V2  cents  an  hour.  She  is  the 
eldest  of  seven  children. 

All  the  commissioners  were  appar- 
ently very  much  moved  by  the  con- 
templation of  the  little  tot  walking  for 
an  hour  each  way  to  and  from  work 
in  weather  like  this,  and  then  standing 
on  her  feet  all  night. 

Father  of  the  Girl. 

Judge  Gray  said:  I’d  like  to  see  her 

father.” 

“Isn’t  it  the  fault  of  her  father’s  em- 
ployer that  she  is  compelled — ” 

“I  think  it’s  the  fault  of  her  father,” 
interrupted  Judge  Gray,  In  indignant 
tones.  “It’s  an  outrage  to  coin  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  little  children  into  money 
in  this  way,  when  there  is  no  real  ne- 
cessity for  it.  It’s  an  outrage.” 

“But  don’t  you  think,  your  honor, 
that  the  natural  instinct  of  the  parent 
would  not  permit  a child  like  this  to 
work  this  way  if  there  was  not  real 
necessity?” 

“Some  parents  have  no  natural  in- 
stincts such  as  you  refer  to,”  said  the 
Judge,  his  indignation  still  apparent. 

“How  about  the  employer  of  the 
girl?”  asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

“The  girl’s  employer  could  not  em- 
ploy her  if  her  father  did  not  take  her 
by  the  hand  and  lead  her  into  the 
mill,”  declared  the  Judge.  “I  want  to 
see  that  father  and  ask  him  a few 
questions.  There  are  miners  who  send 
their  daughters  to  the  mills  who  are 
earning  enough  to  keep  them  at  home.” 

Major  Warren  got  the  little  girl  to 
give  her  father’s  name  and  the  place 
of  his  employment,  that  he  might  pre- 
sent to  the  commission  exact  figures  on 
the  father’s  earnings. 

Helen  Sisach,  an  11  years  and  11 
months  old  Slav  girl,  next  testified, 
through  another  little  Slav  girl,  Mary 


Gampko,  of  about  the  same  age.  She 
told  that  she  has  been  working  nights 
for  more  than  a year  in  a Dunmore 
silk  mill  for  three  cents  an  hour. 

"How  much?”  fairly  shouted  Judge 
Gray. 

“Three  cents  an  hour,”  the  little  in- 
terpreter answered. 

“Three  cents  an  hour!”  repeated  the 
judge,  slowly.  The  comment  he  felt 
called  upon  to  make  was  made  under 
his  breath.  From  the  expression  of  his 
countenance  he  was  saying  something 
that  would  not  get  into  an  expurgated 
edition  of  the  record. 

A little  later,  in  telling  about  their 
home  life,  the  little  girl  admitted  that 
her  father  owned  his  own  home. 

“They  own  their  own  house?”  in- 
quired Judge  Gray  to  make  sure  that 
he  heard  aright. 

“Yes,  sir,”  said  the  little  interpreter. 

Judge  Gray  looked  ahead  of  him 
vacantly  for  awhile,  with  his  hands 
thrust  deep  in  his  pockets,  and  then  re- 
marked: “I’d  like  to  see  her  father.” 

Swore  She  Was  Thirteen. 

Judge  Gray  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  law  forbids  the  employ- 
ment of  children  under  13  years  of  age 
in  factories,  mills  and  the  like,  and 
asked  how  it  was  that  the  witness,  who 
was  not  yet  twelve,  had  been  working 
for  more  than  a year.  The  little  in- 
terpreter and  the  witness  talked  in 
Slavish  for  a time  and  then  the  former 
answered:  “Her  father  swore  she  was 

thirteen.” 

Major  Warren’s  questions  brought 
out  the  information  that  the  little  girl’s 
father  is  a contract  miner  and  that  he 
works  steadily. 

Rosie  Huser,  an  eleven  and  a half 
year  old  Dunmore  girl,  told  that  she 
has  been  working  nights  in  the  silk 
mill  for  six  months  at  5 y2  cents  an 
hour.  Her  father  is  William  Huser,  a 
contract  miner  for  the  Pennsylvania 
Coal  company,  and  has  five  children. 
He  owns  his  own  house. 

“Your  father  owns  his  own  house?” 
asked  Judge  Gray. 

“Yes.  He  is  my  step-father,  not  my 
father,”  said  the  little  girl. 

“I  thought  as  much,”  remarked  the 
judge. 

Mr.  Darrow  tried  to  mollify  things 
by  having  the  little  girl  tell  that  the 
house  is  not  paid  for.  The  little  girl 
thought  it  was  not  all  paid  for. 

Judge  Gray  inquired  if  there  was  any 
law  in  this  state  forbidding  children 
from  working  nights.  Nobody  could  an- 
swer him.  Mr.  Torrey  said  that  he 
would  look  it  up. 

“I  guess  the  statutes  relative  to  child 
labor  are  not  much  better  than  dead 
letters  in  the  coal  regions,”  said  the 
judge  half  inquiringly. 

The  judge  spent  a little  time  looking 
over  the  statutes,  which  he  keeps  be- 
fore him,  and  found  a law  prescribing 
that  minors  between  the  ages  of  thir- 
teen and  sixteen  shall  not  work  more 
than  six  months  in  any  one  calendar 
year.  He  read  the  statute  and  looked 
up  as  If  to  say:  How  about  It?”  There 


was  no  response.  It  was  evidently  news 
to  the  lawyers. 

Wages  Fathers  Earn. 

During  the  noon  recess,  Major  War- 
ren made  an  investigation  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Coal  company’s  statistics  and 
found  that  the  fathers  of  three  of  the 
little  girls  had  earned  wag^s  in  1901  as 
follows:  John  Denko,  $934.36,  for  eight 
and  a half  months’  work;  Peter  Sisack, 
$1,121.05  for  twelve  months,  and  William 
Huser,  $416.28  for  five  and  a half 
months.  The  statistics  of  the  Nay  Aug 
Coal  company  show  that  the  father  of 
the  McDermott  girl  earned  $375.02  in  the 
six  months  he  worked  for  that  company 
in  1901  and  that  his  earnings  for  the 
nineteen  days  he  wo  ked  since  the  strike 
were  $96.21.  All  these  are  net  earnings. 

Thomas  William,  a 14-year-old  slate 
picker,  employed  by  the  Red  Ash  Coal 
company  at  Reno,  Schuylkill  county, 
told  that  he  works  for  $4.75  a week  and 
that  his  ten-year-old  brother  works  for 
$4  a week.  His  mother  is  a widow. 

“There  is  a case,”  said  Judge  Gray, 
“where  a poor  woman  very  likely  is 
compelled  to  have  her  babes  earn  for 
her.” 

The  little  fellow  was  asked  by  Judge 
Gray  how  it  came  that  his  ten-year-old 
brother  was  working  when  the  law  pre- 
scribes that  no  one  under  twelve  years 
of  age  shall  be  employed  in  the  breaker. 

“He  got  a note  to  the  boss,”  said  the 
boy. 

“Yes,  so  I supposed,”  said  the  judge. 
"Who  wrote  the  note,  Tommie?” 

“I  did,”  said  the  lad,  laughing. 

"And  who  signed  it?”  asked  the  judge. 

“Mother  did,”  replied  the  boy. 

"Well,  I suppose  she  had  to,”  said  the 
judge.  “She  probably  needs  the 
money.” 

At  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  ses- 
sion, Judge  Gray  asked  for  the  name 
and  address  of  the  factory  inspector. 
Major  Warren  informed  him  that  the 
inspecter  is  Earl  W.  Bishop,  of  Dun- 
more. 

Invited  Factory  Inspector. 

"Mr.  Recorder,”  said  the  judge,  "take 
that  down,  and  write  the  inspector  in- 
viting him  to  come  before  the  commis- 
sion, and  tell  what  he  knows  about 
these  apparent  violations  of  the  child 
labor  laws.” 

More  witnesses  from  the  Philadelphia 
and  Reading  collieries  were  called  and 
examined  by  Congressman  Charles 
Brumm,  of  Minersvllle,  who  was  called 
in  specially  by  the  miners  to  assist  in 
the  examination  of  the  witnesses  from 
this  region. 

Henry  Leidich,  of  Good  Spring  col- 
liery, complained  that  the  company  re- 
scinded a pillar  robbing  contract  be- 
cause he  was  making  too  much  money 
and  that  he  was  later  discharged.  Mr. 
Wolverton  brought  out  the  fact  that 
the  boss  who  discharged  him  was  his 
brother-in-law,  and  that  there  was  a 
family  quarrel  between  them. 

Earl  Mayer,  another  Good  Spring 
man,  told  that  he  was  not  re-employed, 


after  the  strike.  He  couldn’t  explain 
why. 

John  Kilcuski,  of  Shenandoah,  exhib- 
ited two  badly  deformed  hands,  result- 
ing from  a gas  explosion  which  he 
blamed  on  the  fire  boss.  He  was  idle 
sixteen  months  and  received  no  help 
from  the  company.  He  was  re-employ- 
ed for  a while  by  the  Reading  company, 
but  he  got  sick  and  when  he  returned 
another  man  was  in  his  place  and  he 
was  sent  away.  He  said  he  only  re- 
ceived $1.80  a day  for  himself  and  two 
men  while  he  worked  for  the  Reading 
company. 

George  Seeg,  from  the  Good  Spring 
colliery,  presented  his  pay  checks  for 
twelve  years  from  1889  to  the  present. 
His  last  pay  was  $15  for  ten  shifts. 

John  Carr,  of  Ashland,  a driver  at 
the  Locust  Gap  colliery,  complained 
that  he  was  discharged  since  the  strike 
because  he  refused  to  tend  to  two  gang- 
ways instead  of  one  as  heretofore.  On 
cross-examination,  Mr.  Wolverton 
brought  it  out  that  the  witness  really 
quit  because  he  would  not  take  the 
place  of  another  man  who  was  dis- 
charged. 

John  Schlotman,  from  the  Good 
Spring  colliery,  complained  he  and  his 
boys  were  not  re-employed  and  that 
new  men,  who  never  worked  at  the 
colliery  before,  have  been  put  in  their 
places. 

Charles  Burke,  from  the  St.  Nicholas 
colliery,  near  Mahonoy  City,  told  of  a 
lower  wage  being  paid  at  his  colliery 
than  at  surrounding  collieries  for  build- 
ing a battery. 

Testimony  anent  conditions  at  Erie 
collieries  was  next  presented. 

At  Erie  Collieries. 

Anthony  Shamus,  check  weighman  at 
the  Clifford  colliery  in  Forest  City,  tes- 
tified that  twenty-nine  hundred  weight 
or  3,248  pounds  are  required  for  a ton 
at  this  colliery.  The  company  never 
allowed  him  to  weigh  the  empty  car, 
but  his  estimate  was  that  there  is  a dif- 
ference of  1,000  pounds  in  the  weight 
of  different  cars,  but  all  are  rated  at 
2,300  pounds.  The  average  at  one  shaft, 
he  said,  was  4,421  tons  out  of  58,079  tons 
or  nine  and  one-half  per  cent.,  and  at 
another,  the  average  was  1,538  tons  out 
of  34,128  tons  or  four  and  one-half  per 
cent. 

Stephen  McDonald,  a Sunday  news- 
paperman, went  on  the  stand  to  tell 
how  many  mills  and  factories  there  are 
hereabouts  employing  girls.  His  knowl- 
edge was  meagre,  vague  and  indefinite, 
and  Mr.  Darrow  withdrew  him. 

J.  E.  Stuttlebein,  carpenter  at  the 
Avondale  colliery  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company, 
told  that  the  size  of  the  mine  car  was 
increased  one  inch  in  height,  in  1890. 
This  added  two  and  one-third  cubic 
feet  to  the  contents. 

Man.  in  His  Place. 

P.  O.  Malley,  a fireman  at  the  Forest 
City  colliery  of  the  Erie  company,  also 
complained  of  not  being  taken  back 
after  the  strike.  When  he  applied  for 


MINE  STRIFE  COMMISSION 

reinstatement  the  boss  told  him  there 
was  a man  in  his  place.  During  the 
strike  he  secured  work  as  -a  section 
hand  on  the  Erie  railroad,  and  without 
any  known  cause  was  one  day  sum- 
marily discharged. 

Major  Warren  asked  the  witness  if  it 
was  not  true  that  he  promised  the  dis- 
trict superintendent  he  could  count  on 
him  standing  by  the  company,  and  in 
the  face  of  that  if  he  did  not  abandon 
his  position.  The  witness  said  he  told 
the  superintendent  he  would  stay  at 
work  as  long  as  the  union  would  let 
him. 

“I  wouldn’t  go  back  on  my  oath,” 
added  the  witness. 

"Then  you  take  an  oath,  do  you?” 
asked  Judge  Gray.  ‘‘What  kind  of  an 
oath  do  vou  take?” 

“Just  a promise  to  stand  by  our 
fellow- workmen.” 

“Do  you  promise  to  stand  by  non- 
union fellow-workmen?”  asked  General 
Wilson. 

“They  stand  on  them,  not  by  them, 
general,”  said  Judge  Gray,  answering 
for  the  witness. 

The  obligation  the  mine  workers’ 
union  requires  of  its  members  was 
read  and  it  was  brought  out  that  a 
pass-word  is  necessary  to  get  into  a 
meeting. 

After  there  had  been  quite  an  expo- 
sition of  this  feature  of  the  union,  Judge 
Gray  remarked:  “This  does  not  make 
it  a secret  organization.” 

John  Tancoski,  a miner  at  the  Clif- 
ford colliery,  tried  to  make  it  appear 
that  the  Erie  was  cutting  off  allowances 
to  recoup  itself  for  the  ten  per  cent. 
Increase  in  1900.  In  proof  of  this  he  told 
of  an  instance  in  1901,  when  he  drove 
eight  yards  of  cross-cut  and  did  not 
get  as  much  for  it  as  he  did  for  sim- 
ilar work  before  the  strike. 

His  Pay  in  1901. 

On  cross-examination  the  witness 
practically  admitted  that  he  understood 
the  increase  to  the  Forest  City  men 
amounted  to  as  much  as  fourteen  per 
cent,  in  some  instances.  It  was  shown 
that  the  witness  drew  $444.25  in  ten 
months  of  1901. 

William  Murphy  and  Anthony  Welby, 
miners  from  the  Archbald  colliery  of  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
company,  told  of  the  attempt  to  form 
the  Lackawanna  union,  prior  to  the 
strike  of  1900.  They  told  that  a commit- 
tee appointed  by  the  foreman  asked 
them  to  join  such  a union.  Murphy 
also  told  that  when  he  refused  to  join 
one  of  the  committee  told  him  he  might 
be  sorry  for  refusing. 

M.  S.  Lavelle,  told  that  District  Sup- 
erintendent Thomas  Williams,  Reese 
Evans  and  Thomas  Morgan  separately 
approached  him  to  join  the  Lackawan- 
na union,  and  that  District  Superin- 
tendent Williams  tried  to  persuade  him 
to  become  president  of  the  Continental 
local  of  the  new  union. 

Mr.  Lavelle  told  of  reductions  made 
In  the  prices  paid  in  two  veins  at  the 
Continental  after  the  1900  strike.  The 


91 

men  Wanted  $1.10  a car  and  $1.25  for 
rock.  The  company  offered  $1.01  a car 
and  seventy-five  cents  for  rock.  A com- 
mittee waited  on  General  Manager 
Loomis  and  it  was  agreed  they  should 
work  for  these  prices  providing  the 
company  would  guarantee  sixteen  cars 
to  the  keg. 

On  cross-examination  the  witness  ad- 
mitted the  men  went  back  to  work  un- 
der this  agreement.  He  added,  though, 
that  they  could  not  make  a living  wage 
at  it. 

Rev.  Thomas  R.  Watkins,  of  North 
Scranton,  the  labor  candidate  for  re- 
corder, was  called  to  testify  as  to  the 
formation  of  the  Lackawanna  union. 
He  works  at  the  Storr’s  shaft  and  has 
been  a miner  for  thirty-five  years.  He 
also  preaches  when  called  upon  to  fill 
a vacant  pulpit,  being  a regularly-  or- 
dained Congregational  minister. 

Mr.  Watkins  told  that  when  the 
movement  for  the  organization  of  the 
Lackawanna  union  was  afoot,  just 
previous  to  the  1900  strike,  a fire  boss 
at  the  Storrs  solicited  him  to  join  it, 
saying  it  would  be  of  much  more  bene- 
fit to  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  men  than  the  United  Mine 
Workers.  He  was  reminded  by  the  fire 
boss  of  the  history  of  previous  miners’ 
unions  and  how  it  was  likely  that  in 
the  United  Mine  Workers  there  were 
thieves  who  would  steal  the  funds.  He 
declined  to  join  the  Lackawanna  union 
despite  all  this. 

Major  Warren  contented  himself  as 
cross-examination  with  one  question, 
carrying  the  inference  that  the  purpose 
of  the  Lackawanna  union  was  to  fur- 
ther the  very  thing  that  President  Mit- 
chell was  advancing — collective  barga'n- 
ing  between  a company  and  all  its  em- 
ployes. 

To  show  that  its  main  purpose  was 
to  antagonize  the  United  Mine  Workers 
Mr.  Darrow  read  from  the  constitution 
of  the  Lackawanna  union,  a clause  set- 
ting forth  that  it  was  a particularly  de- 
sirable organization  for  anthracite  men 
as  it  was  not  controlled  by  “soft  coal  or 
other  prejudicial  interests.” 

Several  more  witnesses  also  told  of 
alleged  discrimination,  but  like  substan- 
tially* all  the  others  they  could  not  deny 
that  it  was  necessary  for  the  company 
to  fill  their  places  during  the  strike,  and 
that  the  men  who  took  the  places  are 
still  holding  them. 

At  3.30  p.  m.,  Mr.  Darrow  announced 
that  there  was  only  one  more  witness 
to  be  presented  by  his  side  on  direct 
examination.  This  witness  is  Samuel 
Gompers,  national  president  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  who  is 
to  testify,  today,  regarding  wages  paid 
to  various  classes  of  workmen  through- 
out the  United  States. 

The  remaining  evidence  to  be  pre- 
sented, Mr.  Darrow  explained,  consist- 
ed of  excerpts  from  various  publica- 
tions to  show  a combination  between 
coal  carrying  roads  and  coal  minin.g 
companies;  consolidations  between 
competing  companies,  and  the  exist- 
ence of  a practical  monopoly  of  the 


92 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


coal  business.  It  would  also  be  shown 
by  a table,  Mr.  Darrow  explained,  :hat 
the  output  of  the  coal  companies  has 
fluctuated  greatly  during  the  past  ten 
years,  and  that  in  consequence  thereof, 
last  year,  taken  alone,  is  not  a fair 
criterion.  “We  may  or  may  not  at 
some  future  time,”  said  Mr.  Darrow, 
"ask  some  questions  of  railroad  presi- 
dents, if  they  are  put  on  the  stand, 
regarding  combinations  for  regulating 
and  restricting  trade.” 

Relevancy  of  Testimony. 

After  a lengthy  discussion  as  to  the 
relevancy  of  the  testimony  it  was  pro- 
posed to  present  regarding  alleged  com- 
binations, discriminations  and  exorb- 
itant rates,  it  was  announced  by  Judge 
Gray  that  while  the  commission  felt  it 
was  not  called  upon  to  make  a finding 
on  these  matters,  it  would  hear  what  it 
was  proposed  to  offer.  “We  have  quite 
enough  to  do,”  said  the  judge,  “to  de- 
cide the  controverted  issues  of  the 
strike,  without  widening  its  scope,  as 
suggested  by  the  offered  evidence.” 

Henry  D.  Lloyd,  who  prepared  the 
evidence,  was  called  upon  to  give  an 
outline  of  what  would  be  offered. 

He  said  it  pertained  to  the  causes, 
character  and  results  of  combinations 
of  capital  and  combinations  of  labor  in 
the  coal  regions;  the  profits  of  coal 
mining;  discriminations  in  freight 
rates;  the  economical,  political  and 
social  consequences  of  the  combina- 
tions. It  was,  in  other  words,  he  ex- 
plained, a compendium  of  the  litera- 
ture of  these  subjects  from  1871  to  the 
present  time,  embracing  all  important 
investigations  by  legislative  and  other 


committees  together  with  judicial  de- 
cisions, etc.,  etc. 

Attorneys  Torrey,  Wolverton,  War- 
ren and  Hand  in  turn  objected  to  lum- 
bering the  record  with  what  Mr.  L'oyd 
had  to  offer.  Judge  Gray  could  not  see 
the  relevancy  of  it.  Mr.  Darrow  ex- 
plained that  it  would  at  least  answer 
the  allegation  of  some  of  the  companies 
that  they  could  not  afford  to  pay  in- 
creased wages. 

A lengthy  discussion  as  to  the  admis- 
sion of  this  testimony  was  cut  short  by 
Judge  Gray  remarking:  “Go  ahead, 

Mr.  Lloyd,  we  might  as  well  spend  two 
hours  receiving  the  evidence  as  in  dis- 
cussing whether  or  not  we  will  receive 
it.” 

After  Mr.  Lloyd  had  proceeded  for 
an  hour  and  a half  with  his  reading, 
he  reached  the  matter  of  freight  rates 
and  profits.  Mr.  Wolverton  again  ob- 
jected, saying  this  testimony  was 
wholly  irrelevant,  that  there  was  noth- 
ing the  commission  wants  in  the  way 
of  information  that  can  be  predicated 
on  the  proferred  testimony,  and  that  at 
all  events  such  matters  were  for  the 
Inter-state  Commerce  commission. 

Twenty  Years’  Work. 

“How  long  has  it  taken  you  to  gam- 
er all  that  data?”  inquired  General  Wil- 
son, looking  up  from  a letter  he  was 
writing  and  letting  his  gaze  fall  upon 
the  stack  of  books  and  papers  in  front 
of  Mr.  Llovd. 

"Twenty  years,”  proudly  replied  the 
eminent  sociologist. 

“Well,  we  haven’t  that  much  l!me  to 
look  it  over,  Mr.  Lloyd,”  said  the  gen- 
eral, as  he  resumed  his  letter  writing. 


Judge  Gray  said  he  thought  the 
Lloyd  data  was  wholly  outside  the 
scope  of  the  present  inquiry.  If  the 
operators  aver  that  they  are  unable,  on 
account  of  meagre  profits,  to  pay  the 
wages  the  miners  are  demanding,  he 
said,  the  question  of  profits  may  prop- 
erly come  before  the  commission.  Until 
such  time,  he  would  ask  Mr.  Lloyd  to 
refrain  from  a further  presentation  cf 
his  data. 

“We  are  going  to  assume,”  Judge 
Gray  added,  “that  the  operators  are 
able  to  pay  fair  wages.” 

This,  Mr.  Darrow  said,  was  satisfac- 
tory to  his  side. 

During  his  hour  and  a half  of  read- 
ing, Mr.  Lloyd  presented  the  findings 
of  various  legislative  and  other  com- 
missions and  the  utterances  of  Poor’s 
Manual  and  the  Commercial  and 
Financial  Chronicle  on  alleged  com- 
binations of  railroads,  their  Identity  of 
interests  as  shown  by  common  direc- 
tors, joint  acquisition  of  the  Temple 
Iron  company,  joint  resistance  to  the 
independents’  proposed  new  road  to 
tidewater,  admissions  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company's 
annual  report  that  “concentration”  of 
coal  interests  had  materially  bettered 
the  local  business,  and  acquisitions  of 
small  companies  by  the  big  ones. 

He  had  just  completed  the  first  part 
of  his  showing  that  exorbitant  rates 
are  charged  for  hard  coal,  as  compared 
with  other  commodities,  when  the  in- 
terruption came.  It  was  5.45  o’clock 
before  Mr.  Lloyd  was  halted  and  ad- 
journment had. 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Dec.  16. 

[ From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec.  IT.] 


After  presenting  testimony  for  twenty 
days,  from  140  witnesses,  the  miners 
yesterday  concluded  their  case  in  chief 
before  the  mine  strike  commission,  and 
today  the  respondents  will  jointly  enter 
upon  their  defense. 

Yesterday’s  session  was  one  of  the 
most  interesting  and  important  yet 
held.  A particularly  important  feature 
was  the  not  unexpected  refusal  of  the 
commission  to  go  into  an  investigation 
of  the  lateral  questions  of  exorbitant 
freight  rates  on  hard  coal,  and  the 
profits  or  losses  of  anthracite  mining, 
unless  it  developed  that  the  operators 
will  defend  against  the  demand  for  in- 
creased wages  on  the  ground  that  they 
can  not  afford  to  pay  them. 

Only  three  witnesses  were  on  the 
stand,  but  each  of  them  gave  testi- 
mony of  an  unusually  interesting  and 
pertinent  character. 

A bit  of  surprise  was  sprung  at  the 
morning  session  by  the  miners’  side 
calling  to  the  stand  J.  C.  Haddock,  of 
Wilkes-Barre,  an  independent  operator, 
who  has  not  been  working  in  harmony 
with  the  big  companies,  and  who  was 


not  at  all  reluctant  to  giving  testimony 
unfavorable  to  his  fellow-operators. 

Gompers  on  the  Stand. 

The  whole  of  the  afternoon  session 
was  taken  up  with  the  examination  of 
Samuel  Gompers,  president  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  who 
told  of  the  successful  workings  of  trade 
agreements,  and  the  policies  and  prin- 
ciples of  trade  unionism  in  general.  He 
made  an  excellent  witness,  and,  no 
doubt,  made  a strong  impression  on  the 
commission.  He  was  asked  a great 
many  questions  by  the  commissioners, 
and  when  he  concluded  his  testimony 
was  thanked  for  his  assistance  by 
Chairman  Gray. 

The  other  witness  was  Rev.  Peter 
Roberts,  Ph.D.,  who  was  re-called  to 
explain  a chart  he  had  made  showing 
the  fluctuations  in  hard  coal  produc- 
tion during  the  past  ten  years,  for  the 
purpose  of  supporting  the  contention  of 
the  miners’  side  that  the  year  1901  was 
so  comparatively  good  as  to  be  ab- 
normal, and,  therefore,  not  a proper 
period  to  serve  as  a criterion  of  miners’ 
earnings. 


At  the  opening  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion, Judge  Gray  referred  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  silk  mill  girls  of  the  day 
before,  and,  in  the  name  of  the  com- 
mission, called  upon  the  community  to 
take  steps  to  remedy  the  sad  condition 
of  affairs  unfolded  by  the  stories  of  the 
little  girls.  He  particularly  recom- 
mended that  legislation  be  passed  for- 
bidding children  or  females  from  work- 
ing all  night. 

A summary  of  the  statistics  of  the 
Hillside  Coal  and  Iron  company  for  the 
year  1901  was  filled  during  the  after- 
noon by  Major  Everett  Warren.  It 
showed  that  the  average  number  of 
pounds  of  prepared  and  pea  coal  pro- 
duced per  miners’  ton  was  2, OSS;  aver- 
age earnings  of  miners,  S6S5.2S;  aver- 
age earnings  of  company  hands,  men 
and  boys,  $359.53;  average  hours  worked 
per  day,  6 6-10. 

The  decision  of  the  commission  re- 
fusing to  accept,  at  this  time,  testi- 
mony bearing  on  freight  rates  and  al- 
leged community  of  interests  among  the 
operators  followed  a speech  by  Henry 
D.  Lloyd  advocating  the  acceptance  of 
the  data  he  has  prepared  on  this  sub- 


ject,  and  which  he  was  engaged  in  pre- 
senting, the  day  before,  when  objec- 
tions on  the  part  of  the  companies 
moved  the  commission  to  ask  Mr.  Lloyd 
to  defer  the  further  reading  of  his  data 
until  later. 

Mr.  Lloyd’s  Speech. 

Mr.  Lloyd  read  his  speech  from 
manuscript,  as  follows: 

Mr.  Chairman,  I desire  to  ask  the  com- 
mission to  allow  us  to  put  in  evidence 
with  regard  to  the  extortionate  and  dis- 
criminating freight  rates,  for  this  reason; 
the  fact  that  such  rates  have  been  and 
are  charged  go  to  the  very  root  of  the 
questions  at  issue  here  between  the  coal 
companies  and  their  men. 

We  do  not  desire  to  submit  this  evi- 
dence for  the  purpose  of  asking  the  com- 
mission to  take  cognizance  of  it  as  a 
matter  within  your  jurisdiction.  We  do 
not  ask  you  to  assume  the  functions 
delegated  by  congress  to  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission.  The  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  have  already 
pronounced  on  this  question  and  its  find- 
ings are  part  of  the  evidence  we  wish  to 
submit,  but  we  ask  the  Commission  to  re- 
ceive this  evidence  because  it  shows  that 
a state  of  affairs  of  deadly  import  to  la- 
bor in  this  community  has  arisen  and 
how. 

A state  of  having  practically  but  one 
employer  from  whom  to  obtain  that  ne- 
cessity of  life,  work,  to-day  exists.  This 
evidence  shows  that  almost  all  of  the 
capitalists  engaged  in  the  coal  business 
have  been  welded  into  one  combination 
with  power  over  the  laboring  population 
as  supreme  as  that  over  would-be  com- 
petitors. Power  controlled  is  always 
abused  and  this  power  is  no  exception, 
and  the  power  has  been  obtained  and  is 
maintained  to-day  by  this  discrimination 
in  rates  which  we  desire  to  show. 

We  seek  tO'  prove  it  not  as  a matter  of 
railroad  economics,  but  as  a matter  of 
labor  economics,  pertinent  to  the  issues 
here,  and  for  that  reason  we  ask  that 
you  will  allow  us  to  present  out  of  the 
reports  of  the  companies  the  further 
evidence  we  have  to  offer  of  the  com- 
munity of  interests  between  the  rail- 
roads and  the  coal  companies,  that  is  of 
(industrial  monopoly.  We  do  not  ask  this 
because  we  expect  or  desire — 

The  chairman — What  was  the  last  prop- 
osition? 

Mr.  Lloyd — The  last  is  that  we  ask  you 
to  allow  us  to  present  out  of  the  reports 
of  the  companies  the  further  evidence 
we  have  of  this  community  of  interest 
leading  to  the  presumption  that  there  is 
but  one  employer  in  this  industry.  We  do 
not  ask  this  because  we  expect  or  desire 
that  you  will  undertake  to  declare  that 
the  combination  is  unlawful.  Not  at  all. 
"But  we  ask  you  to  take  cognizance  of  the 
fact  that  an  unbroken  line  of  evidence 
for  nearly  forty  years  discloses  the  trans- 
portation and  the  mining  and  the  market- 
ing of  coal  moving,  and  to-day  as  strong- 
ly as  ever,  toward  an  ever  and  ever 
increasing  monopoly,  and  that  monopo’y 
applies  to  the  working  men,  whom  it  op- 
presses) most  severely. 

From  Reports  of  Companies. 

We  offer  to  supplement  the  evidence 
from  the  official  investigation  given  yes- 
terday, the  evidence  taken  from  the  re- 
ports of  the  companies  themselves,  bring- 
ing the  evidence  that  there  is  but  one 
emnlover  down  to  date.  We  do  not  at- 
tack the  principles  of  combination:  we 
claim  the  right  of  combination  for  our- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

selves.  But  here  is  an  abuse  of  combin- 
ation with  the  greatest  economic  effect. 

You  have  to  decide  between  the  parties 
before  you  as  to  whether  an  advance  of 
pay,  or  a shortening  of  hours,  shall  or 
shall  not  be  given,  and  if  given,  how 
much.  Nothing  could  be  more  pertinent 
to  your  consideration  of  this  matter  than 
proof  that  the  wages  and  hours  of  labor 
and  terms  of  employment  existing  in 
these  industries  are  the  result,  not  of 
natural  economic  forces  playing  in  free- 
dom. but  of  the  unnatural  combination 
produced  by  forces  and  the  violation  of 
law.  We  do  not  ask  you  to  find  that 
this  is  the  fact,  but  we  do  ask  you  to 
take  cognizance  that  it  is  a fact  of  this 
situation.  That  this  has  been  found  to 
be  so  by  every  official  body  to  which  it 
has  been  brought  either  by  the  people  or 
by  individuals  for  an  entire  generation. 

We  wish  to  convince  you  that  the  level 
of  wages  here  is  unnatural  by  showing 
you  that  an  unnatural  economic  condi- 
tion has  been  at  work.  It  is  impossible 
that  the  knowledge  of  this  fact,  if  it  be 
a fact,  should  not  be  of  weight  in  your 
deliberation  as  to  whether  you  can  give 
ten  per  cent,  or  twenty  per  cent,  or  one 
per  cent,  of  betterment  of  conditions. 
Where  the  ownership  and  operation  cf 
an  entire  industry  and  the  employment  of 
labor,  are  all  passing  into  one  set  of 
hands  regulating  prices  and  wages,  fix- 
ing output,  deciding  who  shall  and  who 
shall  not  be  allowed  to  engage  in  the 
business  as  laborer,  miner,  carrier, 
merchant,  or  capitalist,  and  on  what 
terms — blacklisting  money  as  well  as 
men — it  is  inevitable  the  working  man 
should  be  forced  down  to  a lower  indus- 
trial life  than  he  wornd  be  otherwise. 

We  ask  the  commission  to  allow  us  to 
complete  our  offer  of  proof  that,  through 
the  natural  monopoly  of  anthracite  coal 
in  these  valleys,  and  the  unnatural 
monopoly  of  mining,  transportation  and 
marketing  which  has  been  superadded.  it 
has  come  about  that  there  is  practical'y 
but  one  employer  of  labor,  that  this  em- 
ployer. as  employers  always  do  when 
they  have  such  a power,  has  taken  full 
advantage  of  this  monopoly  that  has  re- 
sulted therefrom  that  the  wages  of  labor 
and  other  conditions  are  unnaturally  de- 
pressed and  that  in  your  award — this  is 
our  point,  sir— that  in  your  award  the 
commission  should  therefore  give  the 
largest  relief  in  their  power. 

Still  at  Work. 

We  seek  to  show  that  these  forces  are 
still  at  work  and  must  be  provided 
against  by  the  commission,  if  the  award 
is  to  be  effective  and  if  it  is  not  to  he 
nullified  in  every  possible  way  after  it 
has  been  made.  The  completion  of  the 
evidence,  Mr.  Chairman,  will  take  about 
twenty-five  minutes. 

The  Chairman — The  commission  have 
considered,  since  the  last  adjournment, 
the  substance  of  the  offer  you  now  make, 
Mr.  Lloyd,  and  I feel  that  the  issues  pre- 
sented to  us  must  be  confined  to  what 
we  consider  reasonably  within  the  four 
corners  of  the  submission  by  the  parties 
to  the  controversy.  That  limitation  and 
characterization  of  our  duty  is  contained 
in  the  first  place,  in  the  open  letter  of  the 
operators  in  which  a request  is  made  that 
the  President  shall  appoint  a commission 
and  secondly,  in  the  acceptance  of  the  of- 
fer of  submission  therein  made  by  the 
mine  workers  by  their  proceedings  at  the 
Wilkes-Barre  convention. 

The  offer  of  submission  by  the  opera- 
tors, so  far  as  it  is  pertinent  to  this  ques- 
tion, is,  “we  suggest  that  a commission  be 


93 


appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  (if  he  is  willing  to  perform  that 
public  service),  to  whom  shall  be  re- 
ferred all  questions  at  issue  between  the 
respective  companies  and  their  own  em- 
ployes, whether  they  belong  to  a union 
or  not.  and  the  decision  of  that  commis- 
sion shall  be  accepted  by  us.”  .... 
“The  findings  of  this  commission  shall 
fix  the  date  when  the  same  shall  be  ef- 
fective, and  shall  govern  the  conditions 
of  employment  between  the  respective 
companies  and  their  own  employes  for  a 
term  of  at  least  three  years.” 

The  mine  workers  submitted  through 
their  counsel  the  following  as  the  ques- 
tions at  issue:  “First,  an  increase  of 

twenty  per  cent,  upon  the  prices  paid 
during  the  year  1901,  to  employes  per- 
forming contract  or  piece  work.  Second, 
a reduction  of  twenty  per  cent,  in  hours 
of  labor,  without  any  reductions  in  earn- 
ings. for  all  employes  paid  bv  the  hour, 
day  or  week.  Third,  the  adoption  of  a 
system  by  which  coal  shall  be  weighed 
and  paid  for  by  weight  wherever  practic- 
able; the  minimum  rate  per  ton  to  be  six- 
tv  cents  for  a legal  ton  of  2,240  pounds; 
the  differentials  now  existing  at  the  var- 
ious mines  to  be  maintained.  Fourth,  the 
Incorporation  in  an  agreement  between 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  and 
the  Anthracite  Coal  Companies  of  the 
wages  which  shall  be  paid  and  the  condi- 
tions of  employment  which  shall  obtain, 
together  with  satisfactory  methods  for 
the  adiustment  of  grievances  which  may 
arise  from  time  to  time  to  the  end  that 
strikes  and  lock-outs  may  be  unneces- 
sary.” 

Vast  Fields  of  Inquiry. 

The  commission  is  not  unmindful  of  the 
fact  that  the  issues  thus  presented,  like 
most  issues  presented  for  the  determina- 
tion of  the  human  faculties,  touch  at 
various  points  vast  fields  of  inquiry,  and 
In  this  case  they  do  touch  upon  the 
boundaries  of  large  sociological  questions, 
undoubtedly,  and  for  that  very  reason 
the  commission  have  felt  that  it  was  very 
Important  that  thev  should  not  be  temnt- 
ed  into  these  fields,  however  attractive 
for  exploration,  but  should  confine  them- 
selves within  what  they  think  a reason- 
able limit  of  investigation. 

The  award  of  which  you  speak.  Mr. 
Lloyd,  and  as  to  which  you  expressed  a 
wish  that  it  may  be  one  that  will  be  pro- 
ductive of  good  results  and  permanent 
peace,  would  be  in  the  dim  and  distant 
future  if  we  attempted  to  explore  thor- 
oughly these  fields  which  you,  by  your 
offer,  open  to  us. 

I do  not  mean  that  you  propose  to  take 
much  time  in  reading  the  evidence  to 
which  you  refer,  but  once  open  that  dorr 
and  we  cannot  do  otherwise  than  make 
a complete  investigation.  We  must  en- 
deavor at  least  not  to  arrive  at  ha'f 
truths  and  we  must  invite  the  other  side 
to  go  into  that  field  with  us  and  assist, 
as  you  would  assist,  in  arriving  at  a re- 
sult that  would  be  comformable  to  truth 
and  justice,  and  to  arrive  at  economic 
facts,  before  attempting  to  apply  ttvm 
to  the  real  issues  that  we  have  in  hand. 

We  feel  we  must  confine  ourselves 
somewhat  strictly,  not  too  strictly,  but 
somewhat  strictly,  within  the  bounds  of 
investigation  marked  out  by  the  submis- 
sion on  both  sides.  The  discrimination 
alleged  to  have  been  made  by  the  C'-al 
carrying  companies  may  or  may  not  he 
true.  We  have  heard — it  is  in  the  air— 
that  such  discriminations  are  made,  but 
we  do  not  think  that  at  present  those  dis- 
criminations, whether  they  be  true  or 


94 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


not,  whether  the  fact  be  one  way  or  the 
other,  will  very  much,  or  at  all,  affect 
the  work  we  have  in  hand,  or  the  find- 
ing's that  we  may  hereafter  make.  We 
do  not  think  we  will  be  affected  by  them. 
If  we  should  discover  it  was  necessary. 
In  order  to  make  a finding  satisfactory  to 
ourselves  and  the  public,  they  should 
be  gone  into,  we  will  not  hesitate  to  turn 
to  any  source  of  information  that  may 
enlighten  our  pathway. 

As  to  the  second  branch  of  your  offer, 
which  I am  going  to  ask  you  to  repeat 
again,  kindly,  as  I may  mis-state  it — 

Mr.  Lloyd:— For  the  same  reason  we 
ask  that  you  will  allow  us  to  present  out 
of  the  reports  of  the  companies  the  furth- 
er evidence  we  have  to  give  of  the  com- 
munity of  interests. 

Chairman’s  Reply. 

The  chairman.— That  question,  which 
you  invite  us  to  go  into,  can  only  be  gone 
into,  if  at  all,  thoroughly  of  course.  We 
will  receive  and  we  will  expect  to  re- 
ceive, and  doubtless  will  receive,  if  we 
once  attempt  it,  from  the  other  side  a 
contentious  presentation  of  their  side,  in 
that  respect. 

But  whether  there  be  community  of  in- 
terests or  no,  the  great  question  as  to 
the  justifiableness  of  the  demands  made 
by  the  mine  workers  remains  and  we  do 
not  see  at  this  time  just  how  we  are  to 
be  affected  in  our  findings,  or  aided  by 
going  into  this  question. 

We  think,  with  God’s  help,  we  may  be 
able,  we  sincerely  pray  we  may  be  ab’e 
to  assist  all  parties  in  this  region  to  ar- 
rive at  a better  understanding  and  at 
more  liberal  conditions  than  have  at- 
tained here  for  years  past.  Whether  we 
do  or  not,  we  do  not  think  would  de- 
pend on  embarrassing  ourselves  by  the 
excursions  right  and  left  of  our  path- 
way that  you  invite  us  to  take.  If  here- 
after the  testimony  should  open  the  way, 
or  make  it  necessary  that  evidence  on 
any  of  these  subjects  should  be  gone  into 
we  will  not  deny  you  the  opportunity  to 
meet  the  contention  of  your  opponents. 
For  the  reasons  that  I have  briefly  and 
imperfectly  stated,  the  commission  are  of 
the  opinion  that  we  will  not  go  further 
in  that  direction  than  w'e  have  already 
gone. 

Judge  Gray’s  reference  to  the  child 
labor  question  took  place  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  morning  session.  He  said: 

“Gentlemen,  the  commission  are  anx- 
ious that  the  lesson  of  yesterday,  drawn 
from  the  testimony  of  those  little  girls, 
should  be  impressed  upon  this  commun- 
ity and  upon  the  citizens  of  this  com- 
monwealth. Of  course,  we  do  not  wish 
to  intrude  or  criticize  the  execution  of 
the  laws  in  a commonwealth  of  which 
we  are  not  citizens,  but  we  do-  believe 
that  the  good  people  of  this  common- 
wealth wdll  take  it  to  heart  and  see 
that  the  law's  which  were  evidently 
framed  to  meet  such  cases  are  execut- 
ed. 

“We  all  have  an  interest,  although 
we  are  but  guests  of  your  common- 
wealth, in  the  conditions  which  affect 
our  common  humanity,  and  I hope  that 
any  emphasis  that  we  can  give  to  that 
situation,  although  we  are  not  of  your 
household,  may  attract  the  public  at- 
tention that  it  deserves.” 

"If  the  chairman  please,”  said  Ma- 
jor Warren,  "the  deputy  factory  in- 
spector is  here  and  can  explain,  I 


think,  to  the  commission,  the  conduct 
of  these  parents  and  the  wray  these 
children  were  employed,  as  well  as  the 
efforts  that  are  taken  by  the  common- 
wealth to  enforce  obedience  to  our  laws. 
And  he  will  relieve  the  commission,  I 
think,  of  the  idea  that  there  are  not 
such  steps  taken  as  can  be  taken  to 
try  to  comply  with  reasonable  regula- 
tions and  rules  concerning  the  employ- 
ment of  child  labor.” 

“We  all  think,  I am  sure,”  said  the 
chairman,  “if  you  will  take  it  in  good 
part  of  us  to  intrude  our  advice,  that 
your  legislature  ought  seriously  to  con- 
sider whether  it  would  not  be  for  the 
public  good  to  enact  a law  forbidding 
the  employment  of  any  child  labor  at 
night,  or  of  any  female  labor  at  night.” 

Judge  Gray  here  stated  that  he  had 
seen  in  the  morning  papers  that  the 
wages  of  these  little  girls’  parents  had 
been  ascertained  and  asked  that  they 
be  presented. 

Mr.  Darrow  objected  on  the  grounds 
that  his  side  had  information  that  the 
wage  statements  were  not  correct  and 
he  wanted  time  to  investigate  them. 
They  had  spent  a good  part  of  the  night 
looking  into  the  matter  but  had  not 
completed  their  investigations. 

Statements  Presented. 

Judge  Gray  decided  to  take  the  state- 
ments and  give  Mr.  Darrow  opportun- 
ity to  challenge  them  later.  The  state- 
ments were  then  presented  by  Major 
Warren,  for  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  com- 
pany and  Mr.  Reynolds,  for  the  Nay 
Aug  Coal  company. 

When  asked  by  Judge  Gray  if  the 
statements  were  correct,  General  Man- 
ager May  of  the  Erie  coal  department 
said  they  were  copied  from  the  attest- 
ed records  and  he  believed  them  to  be 
correct.  If  they  were  incorrect,  he  said, 
he  would  be  glad  to  know  it. 

Regarding  the  testimony  of  Deputy 
Factory  Inspector  E.  W.  Bishop,  it  was 
decided  to  defer  calling  him  until  Mr. 
Darrow  could  have  time  to  prepare  to 
cross-examine  him. 

The  testimony  of  John  C.  Haddock, 
independent  operator,  was  then  re- 
ceived. In  calling  him  to  the  stand, 
Mr.  Darrow  said  he  thought  it  was 
only  fair,  to  his  side,  to  say  that  under 
a strict  hearing  of  the  case  he  might 
not  present  Mr.  Haddock.  “Although  I 
think,  in  the  main,”  said  he,  “that  his 
testimony  will  be  favorable  to  us,  he 
is  a coal  operator  and  a party  to  this 
case,  and  I know  that  the  inferences 
that  might,  ordinarily,  be  drawn,  would 
not  be  drawn  in  this  particular  in- 
stance; that  is,  it  would  not  be  fair  to 
say  he  is  a hostile  witness.” 

“He  might  turn  state’s  evidence,” 
suggested  Judge  Gray,  which  provoked 
general  laughter. 

“I  want  the  information,  whatever  it 
is,”  said  Mr.  Darrow.  “I  simply  make 
this  explanation  to  have  it  understood 
I do  not  want  to  be  considered  as  bound 
by  it,  in  the  same  sense  that  I would 
ordinarily  by  one  of  my  own  wit- 
nesses.” 


Mr.  Haddock  began  his  testimony  by 
stating  that  he  was  president  of  the 
Plymouth  Coal  company,  which  oper- 
ated two  collieries  in  Luzerne  borough. 
He  began  to  operate  in  1879  and  con- 
tinued in  business  until  last  March, 
when  the  company  went  into  the  hands 
of  a receiver,  and  later  into  the  hands 
of  a trustee. 

Have  the  Best  Market. 

He  told  that  small  sizes,  which  were 
formerly  discarded,  now  bring  the  best 
market:  that  there  has  been  a decided 
fluctuation  in  output  during  the  past 
ten  years:  that  there  is  at  present  a 
market  for  all  the  coal  that  can  pos- 
sibly be  mined;  that  coal  is  being  sold 
in  New  York  for  $11  and  $12  a ton,  al- 
though the  list  price  is  $4.50,  and  that 
it  is  likely  a high  price  for  coal  will 
be  maintained  for  another  year  at  least, 
because  of  the  present  shortage  and 
the  assurance  that  consumers  will  buy 
heavily  during  the  summer  to  stock  up 
for  next  winter. 

He  could  not  say  there  had  been  any- 
thing done  by  the  coal  roads  and  oper- 
ators to  regulate  the  coal  supply,  but 
he  admitted  that  there  was  apparently 
some  regulation  of  the  tonnage.  It  took 
him  a year  and  a half,  he  said,  to  es- 
tablish his  right  to  mine  and  ship  as 
much  coal  as  he  wanted  to.  The  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  com- 
pany, he  said,  showed  a-  disposition  to 
try  to  regulate  it  for  him. 

Simpson  & Watkins,  he  said,  was  the 
first  firm  to  go  to  the  inter-state  com- 
merce commission  to  secure  better 
treatment  in  the  way  of  car  service 
from  the  coal  carriers.  Coxe  Bros.  & 
Co.  also  complained.  He,  himself,  had 
to  have  recourse  to  the  commission. 

He  declared  his  belief  that  a labor 
union  was  beneficial  to  the  men  and  to 
the  community;  that  he  has  dealt 
directly  with  mine  workers’  unions; 
that  an  eight-hour  day  for  miners  and 
firemen  and  nine  hours  for  others  was 
enough;  that  the  condition  of  the  mar- 
ket warranted  an  advance  in  wages, 
and  that  where  coal  can  be  paid  for  by 
weight  it  should  be  done,  as  it  is  the 
only  fair  way. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Torrey 
tried  to  have  it  appear  that  because  of 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Haddock  had  allowed 
the  union  to  help  him  run  his  business 
the  property  had  gone  into  the  hands 
of  a receiver.  Mr.  Haddock  declared 
this  was  not  the  case  at  all:  that  a 
fire  which  caused  extensive  damages, 
coupled  with  unfair  treatment  from  the 
coal  carriers,  caused  his  failure. 

Waste  of  20  Per  Cent. 

Mr.  Reynolds'  cross-examination  elic- 
ited the  admission  that  there  is  now 
little  or  no  market  for  big  sizes,  and 
that  in  breaking  down  the  big  sizes  to 
make  the  coal  marketable  there  is  a 
waste  of  20  per  cent. 

When  Dr.  Roberts  was  explaining  his 
fluctuation  chart,  Mr.  Torrey  asked  him 
if  it  wasn’t  true  that  the  miners  asked 
for  an  advance  on  the  1901  wages.  The 
witness  agreed  that  this  was  so. 


Mr.  Darrow  said  the  commission  is 
asked  to  raise  the  price  per  yard,  per 
car.  or  per  pound,  according  to  the 
method  of  measuring  wages.  An  award 
could  not  be  made  with  nothing  as  a 
basis  other  than  one  big  year’s  earn- 
ings. 

Mr.  Torrey  repeated  a statement  of 
President  Mitchell  that  the  only  fair 
way  to  get  at  a man’s  wages  is  by  his 
annual  earnings. 

“Yes,  for  a number  of  years,”  said 
Mr.  Darrow. 

Samuel  Gompers,  national  president 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
arrived  at  1.50  p.  m.  from  Washington, 
D.  C.,  and  was  on  the  stand  twenty 
minutes  later.  He  and  Commissioner 
Clark  shook  hands  warmly. 

In  response  to  questions  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row, he  told  of  the  formatiorl  and  work- 
ing plan  of  the  federation;  that  there 
has  been  a growth  in  labor  organiza- 
tions in  the  last  ten  years,  and  es- 
pecially since  the  revival  of  industry, 
subsequent  to  the  panic  of  1873,  and 
particularly  in  the  last  year;  that  op- 
position to  labor  unions  from  employ- 
ers is  disappearing;  that  organized 
workmen  are  better  paid  and  more  in- 
telligent than  those  not  organized,  and 
that  the  reduction  in  the  hours  of 
labor  has  been  beneficial  to  both  em- 
ployer and  employe. 

Commissioner  Parker  asked  the  wit- 
ness if  unions  do  anything  to  educate 
their  members  in  the  way  of  making 
them  better  workmen. 

Mr.  Gompers  answered  in  the  affirm- 
ative. Eighty  of  the  one  hundred 
unions  issue  periodicals  devoted  large- 
ly to  increasing  the  efficiency  of  the 
members  by  teaching  them  the  tech- 
nique of  their  craft. 

Commissioner  Clark  asked  if  Mr. 
Gompers  had  made  any  comparisons 
of  the  productive  capacity  of  the  work- 
men under  the  eight  and  ten  hour  days. 
The  witness  said  it  has  never  failed 
that  both  in  the  aggregate  and  per 
individual  the  productive  capacity  of 
an  eight  hour  day  exceeds  a ten  hour 
day.  Labor-saving  machinery  has  al- 
most invariably  followed  the  installa- 
tion of  the  eight  hour  day,  he  added. 

Do  Not  Restrict  Output. 

In  answer  to  a question  by  Commis- 
sioner Watkins,  Mr.  Gompers  denied 
that  unions  restrict  output  or  limit  the 
working  capacity  of  their  members. 
"The  union  man  believes  in  letting  the 
machine  do  all  the  work  it  can  during 
a reasonable  working  day,”  said  Mr. 
Gompers.  “All  we  ask  is  that  we  have 
a fair  day’s  wages.  We  feel  we  ought 
to  share  in  some  measure  in  the  bene- 
fits of  the  machine.” 

Further  questions  by  Commissioner 
Watkins  elicited  the  admission  that 
some  individuals,  who  are  union  men, 
do  attempt  to  restrict  production,  and 
that  possibly  a union,  here  and  there, 
does  not  discourage  it. 

Collective  bargaining,  Mr.  Gompers 
said,  is  being  more  general  every  day. 

The  joint  agreement  obtains  as  a 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

rule  in  the  building  trades,  the  print- 
ing industry,  clothing  trade,  with 
coopers,  electrical  workers,  glass  work- 
ers, granite  cutters,  hatters,  horse- 
shoers,  tin  and  iron  workers,  long- 
shoremen, machinists,  stone  cutters, 
marble  workers,  railroaders,  soft  coal 
miners,  iron  moulders,  musicians,  oil 
workers,  painters,  paper  makers,  and 
so  on. 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  trade 
agreements  there  has  been  a great  les- 
sening of  friction  between  employers 
and  employes.  They  are  generally, 
faithfully,  observed  on  both  sides  and 
have  caused  a great  diminuition  in 
strikes. 

Judge  Gray  asked  if  strikes  have  in- 
creased in  number  correspondingly 
with  the  increase  in  unions.  Mr.  Gom- 
pers said  the  contrary  was  the  case. 

Judge  Gray  asked  Mr.  Gompers  for 
his  views  on  boycotts. 

He  said  he  believed  in  withdrawing 
or  withholding  his  patronage  from  an 
unfair  merchant  and  to  advise  others 
to  do  likewise.  By  an  unfair  merchant 
he  meant  one,  who,  for  instance,  would 
not  pay  the  prevailing  rate  of  wages. 

“Would  you  boycott  me  for  riding  on 
a street  car?”  asked  Judge  Gray. 

“No,  I think  not — no,  I would  not,” 
answered  Mr.  Gompers. 

Unions  never  approve  of  force  or 
violence  as  aids  in  winning  a strike, 
Mr.  Gompers  went  on  to  say.  He 
pointed  to  the  set  back  the  progress 
of  unionism  experienced  by  reason  of 
the  Haymarket  bomb  throwing  on  the 
day  appointed  for  the  inauguration  of 
the  eight  hour  work  day. 

“I  hear  of  operators  saying  they  will 
deal  only  with  their  own  employes,” 
said  Mr.  Gompers.  “This  is  another 
mistaken  policy.  When  there  is  a dis- 
pute between  an  employer  and  his  em- 
ployes, the  likelihood  is  that  the  spokes- 
man of  the  employe  is  either  too  docile 
or  too  domineering  to  make  an  effective 
representative.  Let  some  official  of  the 
employes’  union  act  for  him  and  you 
will  have  better,  results.  It  is  essential 
to  the  official’s  reputation  as  a success- 
ful moderator  that  he  shall  accomplish 
something.  This  , will  move  him  to  be 
conservative.  He  is  also  more  fitted  by 
experience  to  negotiate  settlements,  and 
can  do  this  with  less  annoyance  to  the 
employer  than  can  either  the  docile  or 
domineering  employe. 

“At  all  events,”  continued  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, “the  employer  has  no  right  to  re- 
fuse to  hear  his  employes  through  the 
representative  they  may  select.  The 
constitution  guarantees  every  citizen 
the  right  of  representation  in  court  by 
counsel.  The  employer’s  office  is  the 
court  of  the  industrian.  The  represen- 
tative he  may  choose  is  his  counsel  in 
that  court.  The  employe  asks  for  an 
extension  of  this  right  of  representation 
by  counsel.” 

“Does  collective  bargaining  bring  the 
most  conservative  employes  to  the 
front?”  asked  Commissioner  Watkins. 

“It  certainly  does,”  said  Mr.  Gompers. 


95 

"The  men  very  naturally  seek  out  as 
their  representatives  those  of  their 
number  who  are  best  fitted  to  deal 
with  larger  questions  with  some  hope  of 
accomplishing  something.” 

In  response  to  a question  by  Com- 
missioner Wright  as  to  what  he  com- 
prehended in  the  phrase  “recognition  of 
the  union,”  Mr.  Gompers  said: 

“Representatives  of  both  parties  meet- 
ing and  agreeing  on  terms  of  employ- 
ment for  a specific  period,  and  making 
a compact  that  no  strike  or  lockout 
shall  be  inaugurated  during  the  speci- 
fied period,  but  instead  that  differen- 
ces shall  be  adjusted  by  a •cornpro- 
misory  policy,  and  in  case  of  this  fail- 
ing, that  arbitration  shall  be  invoked.” 

The  Cross-Examination. 

Mr.  Torrey  conducted  the  cross-exam- 
ination of  President  Gompers.  Like 
some  of  the  preceding  witnesses,  Mr. 
Gompers  had  written  things  and  Mr. 
Torrey  was  prepared  to  confront  him 
with  the  writings. 

One  of  the  things  Mr.  Torrey  paraded 
before  him  was  an  article  from  the  Am- 
erican Federationist,  in  which  Mr. 
Gompers  declared  the  “third  party”  to 
the  mine  strike — the  public — had  no 
rights  to  either  interfere  with  the  min- 
ers staying  out  on  strike  or  to  force  the 
operators  to  open  up  their  mines.  Mr. 
Gompers  said  he  still  subscribed  to  that 
view. 

In  a report  of  the  industrial  commis- 
sion, of  1901,  a statement  to  the  effect 
that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
is  antagonistic  to  all  attempts  to  sup- 
press the  boycott,  and  that  President 
Gompers  in  the  national  convention  of 
the  federation  in  1896  advised  that  if  a 
court  grants  an  injunction  against  a 
boycott,  the  name  of  the  boycotted  par- 
ty and  the  grievance  against  him  be 
printed  together  with  a statement  that 
“we  are  enjoined  from  boycotting  this 
party.” 

Mr.  Gompers  denied  this.  He  advised, 
he  said,  that  the  injunction  itself  be 
published  broadcast. 

“To  strengthen  the  boycott,  I sup- 
pose?” queried  Mr.  Torrey. 

“Do  you  think  the  publication  of  the 
injunction  would  be  more  effective  than 
the  boycott  itself?”  asked  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, and  then,  after  a brief  pause,  he 
added:  “Well,  if  you  do,  your  views 

are  all  right.” 

Mr.  Gompers  said  it  was  possibly 
wrong  to  give  every  local  body  of 
trades  unionism  the  power  to  inflict 
boycotts,  and  admitted  that  private 
spites  or  commercial  rivalry  might 
sometimes  enter  into  the  infliction. 

To  Judge  Gray’s  inquiry,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers said,  the  observance  of  a boycott 
was  not  obligatory  on  any  member  of 
a union.  It  was  left  to  his  own  con- 
science. 

Improper  Uses. 

To  boycott  a merchant  for  refusing 
to  sell  necessaries  of  life  to  non-union 
men,  or  to  boycott  school  teachers  be- 
cause their  relatives  were  non-strikers 
were  improper  uses  of  the  boycott,  Mr. 


96 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Gompers  admitted.  “A  rather  far- 
fetched use  of  it,”  is  the  way  he  put  it. 

Mr.  Torrey  concluded  the  cross-ex- 
amination by  reading  from  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomo- 
tive Engineers  certain  disciplinary 
clauses  inflicting  penalties  of  expulsion 
for  drunkenness  and  so  on,  and  asked 
Mr.  Gompers  if  he  did  not  think  the 
United  Mine  Workers  could  improve 
their  standing  before  the  public,  and 
particularly  in  the  eyes  of  the  oper- 
ators, by  making  some  provision  for 
disciplining  their  members  for  breaches 
of  this  and  similar  kinds. 

‘‘When  the  mine  workers  come  to  be 
regarded  by  the  operators  with  the 
friendliness  and  confidence  that  the 
railroads  regard  the  engineers,”  said 
Mr.  Gompers,  “the  miners  will  likely 
be  disposed  to  make  their  constitution 
conform  more  closely  to  the  views  of 
the  operators.  There  are  some  things 
in  the  matter  of  policy  the  miners 
should  adopt,  but  not  just  yet.” 

A provision  of  the  engineers’  organ- 
ization is  that  no  illiterate  man  shall 
be  initiated.  “Ten  years  from  now,” 
said  Mr.  Gompers,  “the  miners  might 
graft  that  into  their  constitution.  Just 
now  the  miners’  union  should  take  in 
and  educate  the  unlettered  thousands 
from  southern  Europe  whom  the  coal 
companies  have  brought  over  here  to 
work  in  their  mines.” 

“Have  you  any  evidence  of  coal  com- 
panies bringing  such  men  here?”  in- 
terrupted Mr.  Torrey. 

“No  trouble  to  prove  it  absolutely,” 
said  Mr.  Gompers. 

“We  would  very  much  like  to  have 
the  proof,”  rejoined  the  lawyer. 

Proofs  He  Mentioned. 

“I  can  give  to  the  chairman  of  the 
commission  the  name  of  a gentleman — 
which  I can  not  give  now — who  will 
give  all  the  proof  you  need.  I,  myself, 
have  seen  copies  of  circulars  sent 
through  southern  Europe  inviting  the 
men  there  to  come  to  Pennsylvania, 
where  there  was  plenty  ot  work  at  big 
wages  in  the  coal  mines.” 

“Were  not  those  circulars  sent  by 
steamship  companies?”  Mr.  Torrey 
asked. 


“Those  particular  circulars  may  have 
been  sent  by  steamship  companies,  but 
it  is  a remarkable  fact  that  those  who 
responded  to  the  invitation  were  not  in 
this  country  very  long  before  they  were 
working  in  the  mines.” 

Mr.  Gompers  was  telling  of  the  ele- 
vating influences  of  unions  and  cited 
certain  of  them  which  broke  up  the 
practice  of  making  pay  day  settlements 
with  laborers,  or  of  engaging  help  in 
barrooms,  as  was  a common  practice 
years  ago. 

“That  sort  of  thing  is  left  for  the 
politicians  now?”  ventured  Mr.  Torrey, 
jokingly. 

Mr.  Gompers  took  this  as  a reflec- 
tion on  him  personally,  and  came  back 
with:  “You  probably  know  more  about 
that  than  I.” 

Mr.  Torrey  had  time  to  think  a few 
thinks  while  the  laughter  was  on,  and 
when  it  subsided  he  remarked:  “But, 

Mr.  Gompers,  I must  protest.  I have 
no  office,  while  you  seem  to  be  able  to 
hang  on  to  yours  very  tenaciously.” 

Mr.  Gompers  asked  the  stenographer 
what  the  last  Question  was. 

It  was  4.30,  the  adjourning  hour,  when 
Mr.  Gompers  left  the  stand. 

Hillside  Company  Statistics. 

Appended  is  the  summary  of  the 
statistics  filed  by  the  Hillside  Coal  and 
Iron  company: 

The  statements  submitted  to  the  com- 
mission by  the  Hilslide  Coal  and  Iron 
company  show,  in  detail,  the  number  of 
collieries,  the  production,  the  shipments, 
the  dockage,  the  earnings  of  the  contract 
miners,  and  all  other  classes  of  labor, 
the  time  worked  by  breakers  and  em- 
ployes, the  time  lost  from  various  causes, 
the  character  of  the  veins  worked  and  in 
general  everything  of  the  actual  condi- 
tions of  production  of  coal  by  the  Com- 
pany possible  to  show  statistically,  for 
the  year,  April  1st,  1901,  to  March  31st, 
1902.  Following  are  the  principal  facts: 


Total  number  of  breakers 6 

Total  miners'  tons  produced  800,406 

Total  tons  prepared  coal  produced,  582.971 
Total  tons  of  pea  coal  produced..  163,018 
Total  tons  of  prepared  and  pea 

coal  produced < 745,959 

Average  number  of  pounds  of  pre- 
pared coal  produced  per  miners’ 
ton 1,632 


Average  number  of  pounds  of  pre- 
pared and  pea  coal  produced  per 

miners’  ton 2,088 

Percent  of  dockage 3.98 

MINERS. 

Average  earnings  of  all  miners 
who  worked  during  the  full  year  $685.2$ 

Total  number  of  miners 1,011 

A number  of  miners  made  net 


earnings  ranging  from  $2,320.76 
down  to  $1,175.00,  and  the  average 
net  earnings  of  all  miners  who 
sent  coal  out  90  per  cent,  of  the 
number  of  days  the  breaker 
started,  was  $831.36. 

Tons  mined  per  day,  per  inside 


employe.  1900 4.409 

Tons  mined  per  day,  per  inside 
employe,  1901 3.400 

COMPANY  MEN. 


Average  earnings  per  day  and  per  year 
of  day  and  monthly  men,  commonly 
known  as  company  men,  by  classes: 

Average 
earnings 
Average  per  man 
per  day.  per  year. 
Engineers,  machinists,  car- 
penters, blacksmiths,  etc..  $2.03  $639.50 


Firemen,  pumpmen,  stable- 
men, trackmen,  timber- 

men,  etc 

1.83 

545.54 

Dumpers,  footmen,  head- 
men, runners,  loaders  etc. 

1.67 

338.76 

Drivers,  plate  or  gatemen. 

1.44 

297.07 

Door  bovs,  slate  pickers 

.86 

190.93 

Laborers  and  various  other 
classes 

1.67 

382.62 

Average  earnings  per  year  of  men 

and  boys $359  53 

Average  breaker  starts,  253 

Average  hours  worked  per  day  based 

on  total  starts 6.6 

Number  of  suspensions  aue  to  action 

of  employes CS2 

Number  of  suspensions  due  to  machin- 
ery  116 

Number  of  suspensions  due  to  cave  in.  1 
Statement  concerning  the  houses  owned 
by  the  company,  as  follows: 

Number  of  company  houses 107 

Average  rental  per  month $5  40 

Average  number  of  rooms 5.8 

The  statements  also  show  uncollected 
rent  amounting  to  $2,172.75  as  due  from 
employes  November  1st,  the  annual  rent- 
al of  the  property  being  $5,93S.OO. 

They  also  show  the  names  and  number 
of  employes  who  are  owners  of  real  es- 
tate, total  number  being  341,  or  over  13 
per  cent,  of  the  whole. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Dec.  17. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec.  18.] 


The  operators  opened  their  case  be- 
fore the  mine  strike  commission  yester- 
day afternoon.  Statements  outlining 
their  position  and  what  they  propose  to 
prove  were  read  by  Hon.  Simon  P.  Wol- 
verton,  of  counsel  for  the  Reading  com- 
pany, representing  all  the  big  com- 
panies, and  by  Ira  H.  Burns,  of  coun- 
sel for  the  independent  operators  of  the 
Lackawanna  and  Wyoming  regions, 
representing  all  the  independents. 

The  undecided  question  of  whether  or 
not  the  recognition  of  the  union  is  be- 
fore the  commission  for  decision  was 
specifically  raised  by  the  operators’ 
statements,  and  a lively  discussion  was 


thereby  precipitated,  but  once  again  the 
commission  refrained  from  a declara- 
tion as  to  how  it  stands  on  this  matter. 

To  accomodate  witnesses  who  reside 
in  this  locality,  the  operators’  pro- 
gramme of  procedure  as  originally  de- 
cided upon  was  modified  to  the  extent 
of  allowing  the  non-union  men's  case  to 
be  heard  first.  The  last  hour  and  a 
half  of  the  afternoon  session  was  taken 
up  with  the  examination  of  witnesses 
who  told  about  the  Winston  murder  in 
Olyphant;  the  attempted  lynching  of 
John  Flanaghan  in  Dunmore  and  the 
bolt  of  strikers  from  an  Olyphant 


church  because  of  the  presence  of  a 
non-union  man. 

A heated  discussion  was  precipitated 
by  an  objection  by  Attorneys  Joseph 
O'Brien  and  John  T.  Lenahan  to  a ques- 
tion  as  to  who  retained  them  to  repre- 
sent the  non-union  men.  Mr.  Darrow 
asserted  that  the  question  was  proper 
because  it  tended  to  show  that  the  non- 
union men  were  before  the  commission 
under  false  colors:  that  they  were  sim- 
ply being  used  by  the  operators  as  they 
were  during  the  strike  to  combat  the 
union.  Attorneys  O’Brien  and  Lenahan 
were  not  called  upon  to  make  any  de- 
fense of  their  position.  Judge  Gray  did 


it  for  them.  He  declared  with  a con- 
siderable show  of  feeling  that  Mr.  Dar- 
row’s  question  was  absolutely  imma- 
terial, and  that  if  the  operators  had 
hired  lawyers  to  present  the  case  of  the 
non-union  men  they  did  a very  credit- 
able thing.  During  the  discussion  Mr. 
Darrow  for  the  -first  time  since  the  ses- 
sions began  deserted  his  usual  calm, 
easy,  pleasant  manner,  and  worked  him- 
self up  to  quite  a pitch  of  excitement. 
He  and  Judge  Gray  seemed  to  vie  with 
each  other  as  to  which  could  pound  a 
desk  the  more  vigorously.  The  com- 
sioners  conferred  about  Mr.  Darrow’s 
question  and  decided  that  Judge  Gray’s 
declaration  represented  the  opinion  of 
all. 

Some  Caustic  Comment. 

Harlier  in  the  day  Judge  Gray  was 
prompted  by  a remark  of  Mr.  Darrow 
to  deliver  himself  of  some  rather  caus- 
tic comment,  the  first  he  had  indulged 
in  at  the  present  sessions.  Mine  Inspec- 
tor Edward  Roderick  was  telling  that 
miners  had  gone  into  a dangerous  mine 
despite  his  instructions.  It  was  intend- 
ed as  a corroboration  of  the  claim  that 
the  miners  do  not  always  co-operate 
with  the  mine  inspector  in  carrying  out 
the  laws. 

Bishop  Spalding  suggested  that  the 
company  was  to  blame  for  allowing 
them  to  go  in.  The  inspector  agreed 
with  him. 

“The  men  were  to  blame,  too,  weren’t 
they?”  inquired  Judge  Gray. 

“Weren’t  they  trying  to  earn  a liv- 
ing?” interrupted  Mr.  Darrow. 

“Now,  Mr.  Darrow,”  said  the  judge, 
“don’t  carry  this  sort  of  thing  too  far. 
No  one  has  more  sympathy  for  the  min- 
er than  I have,  but  I do  not  hold  them 
as  wholly  exempt  from  the  ordinary 
laws  governing  the  conduct  of  other 
human  beings.  They  are  not  incapable 
of  wrong.  Don’t  push  the  sympathy 
lines  too  far.  Let  us  not  play  the  baby 
act.  We  don’t  want  to  become  maud- 
lin.” 

Mr.  Darrow  was  discreetly  silent. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning'  ses- 
sion, the  miners  nut  on  the  fathers  of 
two  of  the  little  Dunmore  silk  mill  girls 
to  contradict  the  statement  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Coal  company  that  they  were 
earning  big  wages.  It  was  made  to  ap- 
pear that  the  figures  given  by  the  com- 
pany were  not  for  a miner  and  laborer 
as  represented,  but  for  two  miners  and 
two  laborers.  Mr.  Darrow  declared 
with  much  vehemence  that  this  action 
on  the  company’s  part  was  in  bad  faith 
and  an  injustice  to  the  fathers,  the 
commissioners  and  the  miners.  Judge 
Gray  indicated  that  he  was  not  disposed 
to  set  much  store  by  the  other  figures 
on  miners’  wages  submitted  by  this 
company,  until  it  had  been  ascertained 
and  set  forth  how  many  men  the  differ- 
ent miners  had  to  pay' out  of  their  earn- 
ings. General  Manager  May  said  the 
company  has  no  record  of  this  and  it 
would  be  difficult  if  not  impossible  of 
ascertainment.  He  would,  however,  re- 
fer the  matter  to  the  company’s  audi- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

tor,  who  had  the  matter  of  statistics  in 
charge. 

Most  of  the  day  was  taken  up  with 
the  examination  of  witnesses  specially 
wanted  to  appear  by  the  commissioners, 
themselves.  These  were  Deputy  Fac- 
tory Inspector  E.  W.  Bishop  and  the 
mine  inspectors  of  the  different  anthra- 
cite districts.  From  the  factory  inspec- 
tor, the  commission  sought  to  inform 
itself  of  the  workings  of  the  factory 
inspection  laws.  The  mine  inspectors 
were  asked  general  questions  about 
their  duties  and  for  opinions  on  various 
matters  based  on  their  observations,  but 
more  particularly  were  they  examined 
as  to  the  allegation  made  by  so  many 
of  the  miners  that  they  never  or  very 
seldom  saw  an  inspector  in  the  mine 
and  that  when  they  did  see  one,  he  was 
almost  invariably  accompanied  by  a 
mine  boss,  whose  presence,  the  wit- 
nesses averred,  deterred  them  from 
making  complaints. 

Generally  speaking,  the  inspectors 
admitted  they  were  often  accompanied 
on  their  tours  of  a mine  by  the  fore- 
man and  that  his  company  was  not  only 
desirable,  but  necessary,  but  all  ex- 
cept one  denied  that  it  had  been  their 
experience  that  the  presence  of  the  boss 
restrained  the  employes  from  making 
complaints.  It  was  generally  agreed  by 
the  inspectors  that  the  mine  laws  were 
closely  observed  by  the  operators  and 
that  the  majority  of  accidents  are  due 
to  carelessness  on  the  part  of  the  min- 
er, or  his  disregard  of  dangers  to  which 
he  becomes  indifferent  by  reason  of 
constant  association  with  them. 

The  opening  statements  of  the  oper- 
ators were  read  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
examination  of  the  mine  inspectors.  A 
nod  from  Judge  Gray  to  Mr.  Wolverton 
Indicating  that  the  commissioners  were 
through  with  their  special  witnesses 
brought  Mr.  Wolverton  to  his  feet  with 
the  typewritten  statement  of  the  big 
companies  and  without  as  much  as  a 
word  of  preface  he  began  to  read  it. 
The  statement  was  as  follows: 

Opening’  Statement. 

Mr  Chairman:  It  has  been  thought  ad- 
visable that  a brief  statement  should  be 
made  in  behalf  of  the  respondents,  out- 
lining their  position. 

All  the  anthracite  coal  in  the  United 
States  is  found  within  the  boundaries  of 
a few  counties  in  the  state  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. It  is  safe  to  say  that  over  $200,- 
000,000  are  invested  in  the  ownership  of 
these  lands,  and  many  millions  of  dollars 
in  the  development  of  them,  and  over 
140,000  men  are  employed  in  the  mining, 
preparing  and  shipping  of  coal  therefrom. 

The  conditions  are  so  entirely  different 
in  different  parts  of  the  anthracite  coal 
field  that  it  is  not  practicable  to  adopt 
any  uniform  method  of  mining  that  can 
be  successfully  carried  on  throughout  the 
whole  region. 

Conditions  not  only  differ  in  different 
parts  of  the  anthracite  field,  but  in  differ- 
ent mines,  in  the  same  mines  and  in  the 
same  veins.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary 
that  the  mining  in  the  greater  part  of 
this  coal  field  must  be  done  by  special 
bargaining,  from  time  to  time,  between 
the  operators  and  the  miners. 


97 


Bituminous  coal  is  found  in  almost  ev- 
ery state  and  territory. 

The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America 
was  an  organization  of  miners  of  bitu- 
minous coal,  covering  most  of  these 
states  and  territories,  producing  coal 
which  is  a competitor  with  anthracite 
coal  in  the  market. 

The  respondents  will  show  that  it  is  the 
acknowledged  purpose  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America  to  organize  all 
of  the  mines  of  the  United  States,  and 
thus  to  establish  a monopoly  of  the  la- 
bor necessary  to  produce  the  fuel  sup- 
ply, which  is  essential  to  the  domestic- 
comfort  and  industrial  prosperity  of  the 
American  people;  a monopoly  obviously 
dangerous  to  all  industry  and  contrary  to 
sound  public  policy. 

In  the  latter  part  of  1899,  or  the  begin- 
ning of  1900,  this  organization  reached  out 
to  control  the  mining  of  anthracite  coal. 
Organizers  filled  the  region,  and  during 
1900  succeeded  in  originating  a strike  in 
the  upper  anthracite  region,  which,  after 
some  time,  through  sympathy,  extended 
to  the  lower  anthracite  field,  and  the 
strike  became  general.  It  was  followed 
by  violence,  and  the  calling  out  of  the 
National  Guard  to  suppress  it.  The  strike 
was  settled  in  October,  1900,  under  cir- 
cumstances familiar  to  every  one  who 
has  given  the  subject  the  least  attention. 
Wages  were  increased  10  per  cent.,  and  in 
some  instances  more,  by  that  settlement, 
and  it  was  understood  that  all  complaints 
of  the  miners  should  be  taken  up  and  set- 
tled by  the  operators  and  men,  as  they 
arose,  which  we  shall  show  was  done. 

Over  100  Strikes. 

We  shall  show  that  notwithstanding  the 
operators  complied  with  the  terms  of  the 
settlement  of  1900,  the  mining  of  coal 
thereafter  was  very  unsatisfactory  to  the 
operators,  that  union  men  refused  to 
work  with  non-union  men,  and  that  there 
were  over  100  strikes  in  one  year  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  anthracite  region. 
There  was  also  a serious  impairment  of 
discipline,  and  a great  increase  of  un- 
necessary friction,  which  seems  to  be  di- 
rectly attributable  to  the  organization. 
The  operators  signified  their  willingness 
to  continue  to  pay  the  increased  rate  of 
wages  agreed  upon  in  1900,  but  the  Mine 
Workers,  represented  by  Mr.  Mitchell, 
wanted  not  only  an  additional  increase  of 
wages  over  that  allowed  in  1900,  but  the 
reduction  by  one-fifth  of  the  hours  of 
labor,  with  the  same  pay,  and  demanded 
that  coal  be  weighed,  and  that  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  as  an  organization,  be 
recognized  by  entering  into  a contract 
with  that  organization. 

These  unreasonable  demands  not  being 
acceded  to,  on  May  12th,  1902,  the  United 
Mine  Workers  ordered  a strike,  notwith- 
standing the  miners  of  a large  part  of  the 
region  were  opposed  to  it.  On  May  21, 
1902,  to  enforce  the  strike  declared  on 
May  12th,  the  United  Mine  Workers  also 
issued  an  order  requiring  the  pumpmen, 
firemen  and  engineers  to  abandon  the 
mines  to  destruction.  These  men  not 
only  left  their  posts  under  this  order,  but 
other  men  were  prevented  by  violence, 
threats  and  all  kinds  of  intimidation  from 
filling  their  places. 

As  a consequence  some  mines  were 
abandoned  and  allowed  to  fill  with  water, 
and  many  of  them  partly  filled,  requiring 
the  expenditure  of  a great  deal  of  money 
and  loss  of  time  for  the  miner,  so  that 
after  resumption  was  ordered,  many  of 
them  could  not  obtain  work  in  their  old 
positions.  Some  of  the  mines  are  even 


98 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


yet  flooded  and  will  not  be  entirely  pump- 
ed out  for  months  to  come. 

Had  it  not  been  for  the  most  strenuous 
efforts  on  the  part  of  the  operators  to 
keep  the  pumps  going,  so  as  to  keep  many 
of  the  mines  in  condition  for  work,  but 
few  miners  would  have  been  able  to  ob- 
tain employment  after  the  resumption. 
Nor  could  there  have  been  a general  re- 
sumption of  mining  until  next  spring,  and 
possibly  not  even  then.  Had  the  union, 
therefore,  succeeded  in  its  attempt  to 
prevent  running  the  pumps,  little  or  no 
coal  could  have  been  furnished  to  the 
public  during  the  winter  of  1902-3. 

Right  to  Organize. 

The  respondents  concede  the  right  of 
labor  to  organize  for  its  protection  and 
to  benefit  the  conditions  of  the  laborer, 
but  they  feel  that  to  be  subject  to  any 
control  of  a bituminous  coal  organization, 
composed  of  boys  as  well  as  men,  in 
which  the  youngest  boys  are  entitled  to 
half  of  a vote,  and  many  of  them  to  full 
votes,  covering  the  whole  United  States, 
consisting  of  eighteen  districts,  of  which 
fifteen  are  in  the  bituminous  region,  and 
only  three  in  the  anthracite,  would  end 
in  the  ruin  of  the  anthracite  coal  busi- 
ness in  Pennsylvania. 

The  steps  that  were  taken,  which  led  to 
tlie  appointment  of  this  commission,  are 
familiar  to  all. 

The  first  question  of  importance  to  be 
determined  is,  “What  questions  were  sub- 
mitted for  its  consideration  and  deci- 
sion?” It  is  powerless  to  consider  or 
take  any  action  upon  any  other  question, 
ft  has  been  conceded  during  the  progress 
of  this  hearing  that  the  basis  or  founda- 
tion of  the  appointment  of  the  commis- 
sion, and  its  powers,  rest  upon  the  letter 
to  the  public,  signed  by  the  presidents  of 
the  coal  mining  companies,  dated  Oct.  13. 
1902,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  terms  of 
this  letter  by  the  convention  of  striking 
mine  workers,  and  that  the  powers  of  this 
commission  are  confined  to  the  questions 
affecting  the  rates  of  wages  paid  and 
the  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor,  and 
in  no  way  involve  the  question  of  recog- 
nition, or  the  entering  into  any  agreement 
with  that  organization,  as  proposed  in  the 
statement  of  claims  filed  by  the  complain- 
ants in  this  case. 

The  respondents  will  also  show  that  af- 
ter the  settlement  of  the  strike  of  1900 
there  was  an  apparently  concerted  effort 
on  the  part  of  the  miners  to  restrict  the 
output  of  the  mines,  and  to  load  fewer 
wagons  or  cars  for  a shift,  instead  of  six 
or  eight  as  before,  and  that  this  resulted 
in  a reduction  of  output  of  the  mines  of 
over  12  per  cent. ; that  the  miners  by  an 
apparent  understanding  left  their  work 
after  a certain  amount  of  coal  had  been 
produced,  regardless  of  the  number  of 
hours  engaged,  and  that  scarcely  any 
coal  was  put  through  the  breakers  during 
the  last  two  hours  of  each  day,  although 
tlm  machinery  was  running  the  full  time. 
This  restriction  was  for  the  evident  pur- 
pose of  preventing  the  producers  from  ac- 
cumulating a stock  of  coal  on  hand  to 
meet  emergencies,  such  as  floods  and 
strikes,  and  when  the  strike  was  ordered 
in  May,  there  was  less  than  one  month’s 
supply  of  coal  in  the  market,  showing 
that  the  strike  was  contemplated  and 
planned  a long  time  before  hand,  and 
carried  out  without  the  slightest  regard 
for  the  interests  of  the  public. 

Dissimilar  Conditions. 

That  under  the  reasons  given  by  the 
Mine  Workers  before  this  commission,  In 


the  first  claim  for  an  increase  of  twenty 
per  cent,  upon  the  price  paid  during  1901, 
to  employes  performing  contract  work, 
the  respondents  will  show  that  there  is 
no  similarity  between  the  mining  of  bi- 
tuminous coal  and  anthracite  coal,  so  as 
to  make  the  wages  paid  to  the  bituminous 
miners  a standard  for  the  payment  of 
wages  to  the  miners  of  anthracite  coal; 
that  mining  of  coal  in  the  anthracite  re- 
gion is  not  similar  work  to  the  mining 
of  bituminous  coal,  and  that  the  rates  of 
wages  in  the  mines  operated  throughout 
the  anthracite  region  are  not  forty  or  fif- 
ty per  cent,  lower  than  is  paid  to  miners 
in  the  bituminous  region,  but  are  actually 
higher. 

That  as  a rule,  contract  miners  in  the 
anthracite  field  earn  $600  per  annum  or 
more,  and  that  many  of  them  earn  up- 
wards of  $1,000  a year,  and  that  all  labor- 
ers are  paid  higher  wages  than  those  em- 
ployed in  other  occupations  of  equal  skill 
and  training. 

That  according  to  the  most  reliable  sta- 
tistics taken  from  the  reports  of  the  Bu- 
reau of  Industrial  Statistics  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, from  the  report  of  the  twelfth 
census  of  the  United  States,  bulletins 
of  the  department  of  labor,  and  from 
other  sources,  it  will  be  shown  that  the 
average  earnings  of  all  employes  of  man- 
ufacturing establishments,  covering  over 
300  different  classes,  skilled  and  un- 
skilled, is  much  below  the  average  wage 
of  the  miners;  that  by  the  census  reports 
of  the  United  States,  it  appears  that  the 
average  earnings,  during  the  last  census 
year,  of  employes  of  manufacturing  es- 
tablishments is  below  the  average  earn- 
ings of  the  miner  in  the  anthracite  coal 
region. 

From  the  report  of  the  Department  of 
Dabor,  the  average  wage  of  farm  labor 
In  Pennsylvania,  is  about  one-half  of  the 
miners’  wage,  and  much  less  than  the 
wages  paid  to  laborers  about  the  mines. 

From  the  annual  reports  of  Industrial 
Statistics  of  Pennsylvania,  it  will  appear 
that  the  average  daily  wages  of  all  man- 
ufacturing industries  in  1901.  was  $1.53 
per  day,  and  that  the  average  earnings 
was  about  $449.45. 

Some  Wage  Statistics. 

From  the  reports  of  the  twelfth  census 
of  the  United  States,  it  appears  that  the 
average  earnings  of  wage  workers  of  all 
manufacturing  industries  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, in  the  counties  of  Carbon,  Colum- 
bia, Dauphin,  Lackawanna,  Luzerne, 
Northumberland,  Schuylkill  and  Sullivan, 
is  about  $466.00,  and  of  all  male  employes 
from  16  years  of  age  and  upwards. 

That  the  average  earnings  of  this  class 
of  employes  in  Lackawanna  county  are 
$504;  in  Luzerne  county,  $493;  in  Northum- 
berland county,  $408;  in  Schuylkill  county. 
$452:  these  cover  all  manufacturing  indus- 
tries. 

From  the  report  of  the  twelfth  census 
of  the  United  States,  the  average  earn- 
ings of  wage  workers  of  all  manufactur- 
ing industries  in  54  cities  and  towns,  in 
and  near  the  anthracite  region,  are  be- 
low $450.00:  and  that  in  but  three  towns 
do  they  exceed  $500. 

From  the  twenty-ninth  annual  report  of 
the  Bureau  of  Industrial  Statistics  of 
Pennsylvania,  covering  eighty-eight  man- 
ufacturing industries  in  Pennsylvania, 
requiring  skilled  labor  of  a higher  char- 
acter than  that  required  of  miners,  it 
appears  that  the  average  rate  of  wages 
paid  to  the  employes  for  the  year  1901  is 
$449.45;  that  among  the  industries  are  the 
following: 


Steel  castings : $497.01 

Steel  billets,  slabs  and  booms 768.14 

Iron  and  steel  forgings,  529.41 

Iron  specialties 478.72 

Malleable  iron 493.18 

Bolts  and  nuts,  etc 363.63 

Wire  nails  and  rivets 451.64 

Tacks  and  small  nails 350.11 

Wire ‘ 415.00 

Wagons  and  carriage  axles  and 

springs,  496.42 

Stoves,  ranges,  etc 552.39 

Hardware  specialties 430.87 

Edge  tools 450.39 

Locomotive  and  car  building  and  re- 
pairing  612.57 

Brass,  copper  and  bronze  goods 480.62 

Tron  and  steel  bridges 566.83 

Engines,  boilers,  etc 562.88 

Locomotives.  stationery  engines. 

etc 625  27 

Railway  supplies 538.68 

Tron  vessels  and  engines,  572.32 

Boilers,  tanks,  stacks,  etc.,  496.49 

Machinery 551.42 

Foundry  and  machine  shops 545.83 

Electrical  supplies 570.78 

Metal  and  metallic  goods 464.93 

Building  and  structural  iron  work..  524. 7S 

Iron  fences  and  railings 470.09 

Agricultural  implements 512.69 

Tinware 368.95 

Paving  brick 374.08 

Building  brick,  375.55 

Fire  brick 42S.42 

Slate  roofing,  etc 399.15 

Slate  roofing  squares 390.16 


The  respondents  will  further  show  that 
the  average  wages  paid  miners  and  la- 
borers in  the  bituminous  coal  field  are 
not  in  excess  of  those  paid  to  the  anthra- 
cite miners,  under  the  same  conditions, 
and  will  also  prove  that  the  conditions  in 
the  bituminous  region  are  less  favorable 
for  the  miner  than  in  the  anthracite 
region,  and  the  respondents  will  further 
show  that  after  the  strike  of  May,  1902. 
a large  number  of  anthracite  miners  left 
the  hard  coal  region,  and  found  employ- 
ment at  mining  in  the  bituminous  coal 
fields,  and  elsewhere,  but  that  they  re- 
turned to  the  anthracite  region,  imme- 
diately upon  the  announcement  that  the 
strike  was  over  and  work  would  be  re- 
sumed. If  the  conditions  had  been  more 
favorable  they  would  have  remained.  The 
respondents  will  show  that  the  miner  in 
the  anthracite  region  works  fewer  hours 
than  in  the  bituminous  region,  and  is 
earning  more  for  the  hours  of  labor  per- 
formed. 

Educational  Facilities. 

That  in  no  part  of  the  state,  outside  of 
the  large  cities,  are  better  educational 
facilities  afforded  than  are  offered  to  min- 
ers’ children  in  these  regions.  The  em- 
ployes of  the  coal  companies  assess  the 
coal  lands,  levy  the  taxes,  generally  to 
the  full  limit  allowed  by  law.  and  ex- 
pend the  money  in  building  up  school 
houses  and  equipping  them  better  than 
in  any  other  part  of  the  country.  They 
have  a greater  number  of  months 
schooling  per  annum,  and  pay  their 
teachers  about  double  the  amount  paid  in 
the  agricultural  districts  of  the  country. 

For  instance,  it  will  be  shown  that  in 
Schuylkill  county,  the  total  school  and 
building  taxes  for  1901.  were  $3S9. 950.36,  of 
which  the  coal  companies  paid  $162,466.11, 
and  the  Philadelphia  and  Reading  Coal 
and  Tron  company  paid  $S0.059.29.  and  that 
these  taxes  were  nearly  all  assessed  and 
paid  in  that  portion  of  the  county  in 
which  the  coal  lands  are  situate;  that  in 
these  townships,  the  companies  paid  from 


72  to  99.7  per  cent,  of  the  school  and  build- 
ing taxes. 

That  in  Northumberland  county,  the 
coal  land  is  located  principally  in  three 
townships,  Coal.  Mount  Carmel  and  Zer- 
be.  In  Coal  township,  the  total  school 
and  building  taxes  levied  for  1901  were 
$40,3(53.86,  of  which  the  coal  companies 
paid  $28,442.90,  and  the  Philadelphia  and 
Reading  Coal  and  Iron  company.  $14,- 
306.05.  In  Mount  Carmel,  the  total  amount 
of  school  and  building  taxes  levied  for 
1901,  was  $14,279.67,  of  which  the  coal  com- 
panies paid  $12,380.93,  and  of  which  the 
Philadelphia  and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron 
company  paid  $6,304.31.  In  Coal  town- 
ship, thje  full  limit  of  twenty-six  mills, 
thirteen  mills  for  school  and  thirteen 
mills  for  building  purposes,  was  levied, 
and  in  Mount  Carmel  township,  fifteen 
mills  for  building  purposes,  was  levied, 
two  mills  for  building  purposes.  The 
schools  were  kept  open  ten  months  in  the 
year,  and  larger  salaries  paid  to  the 
teachers  than  in  any  other  portion  of  the 
county.  Practically  the  same  condit'on 
will  be  shown  to  prevail  throughout  the 
coal  regions.  Under  these  circumstances, 
it  is  unjust  to  the  young  people  of  the 
anthracite  coal  region,  to  charge  that 
they  have  not  the  educational  facilities 
necessary,  or  that  they  have  not  made 
use  of  them  in  acquiring  a good  English 
education.  In  no  part  of  the  state  where 
agricultural  or  manufacturing  industires 
prevail,  are  there  to  be  found  brighter  cr 
better  educated  or  more  intelligent  peo- 
ple than  among  the  miners,  who  have 
been  born  and  educated  in  the  anthracite 
coal  fields,  and  they  will  compare  favor- 
ably with  those  who  have  enjoyed  the 
benefits  of  the  free  schools  in  any  other 
part  of  the  state.  There  may  be  in- 
stances, when,  through  neglect  of  the 
parents  or  the  officers  of  the  districts,  a 
child  may  be  allowed  to  remain  out  of 
school  and  thus  not  take  advantage  of 
the  facilities  offered,  but  such  instances 
are  likely  to  occur  in  any  district,  and 
the  result  should  not  be  cha.rged  to  any 
but  those  who  are  responsible. 

Is  Hot  Unhealthy. 

It  will  be  shown  by  reliable  statistics 
and  the  testimony  of  physicians  that  min- 
ing is  not  an  unhealthy  occupation,  and 
that  aside  from  accidents,  its  healthful- 
ness compares  favorably  with  all  other 
occupations. 

As  to  the  third  claim  made  by  the  com- 
plainants, for  the  adoption  of  a system 
by  which  coal  shall  be  weighed,  and  fix- 
ing a minimum  rate  per  ton,  it  will  be 
shown  that  in  the  larger  part  of  the  an- 
thracite coal  field,  owing  to  the  pitch  cf 
the  veins  and  other  conditions,  it  is  not 
only  impracticable,  but  almost  impossible 
to  adopt  such  a system;  that  mining  is 
now  carried  on  by  contract  in  this  portion 
of  the  anthracite  region,  by  which  the 
coal  is  mined  mostly  by  the  yard,  and 
that  as  alt  of  the  material,  including  rock 
and  slate,  must  be  brought  to  the  surface 
it  is  the  only  method  that  can  be  adopt- 
ed. 

As  to  the  claim  for  the  reduction  of 
the  hours  of  labor,  without  any  reduction 
of  earnings,  it  will  be  shown  that  miners 
and  laborers  do  not  work  eight  hours, 
and  that  as  to  the  miners,  in  a majority 
of  cases,  they  worked  fewer  than  six. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  after  the  testi- 
mony in  behalf  of  the  respondents  has 
been  fully  heard,  the  miners  and  laborers 
will  feel  that  the  wages  paid  to  them  are 
not  only  equal  to  but  greater  than  are  paid 
to  others  engaged  in  similar  occupations. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


and  that  their  conditions  and  surround- 
ings are  not  intolerable,  as  the  paid  ag- 
itators and  organizers  would  make  them 
appear,  and  that  the  good  feeling  between 
the  operators  and  employes,  which  pre- 
vailed prior  to  1900,  for  over  thirty  years, 
will  again  be  restored.  It  is  also  hoped 
that  the  commission,  when  it  has  heard 
all  of  the  evidence,  will  be  able  to  render 
such  a decision  as  will  be  followed  by  a 
lengthy  period  of  peace  between  the  em- 
ployers and  employes. 

When  Mr.  Wolverton  had  concluded 
his  reading,  Mr.  Burns  announced  that 
the  independent  operators  had  prepared 
a supplementary  statement  pertaining 
to  their  contentions,  and  offered  to  read 
or  file  it  for  record  as  the  commission 
would  desire.  Judge  Gray  said  he 
might  file  it,  but  later  the  commission 
decided  to  hear  it  read,  and  Mr.  Burns 
obliged.  He  was  interrupted  several 
times  by  the  general  laughter  which 
his  happy  illustrations  provoked.  The 
statement  was  as  follows: 

Independents’  Statement. 

The  object  and  organization  of  this  com- 
mission is  probably  without  any  preced- 
ent in  this  country.  It  is  not  based  on 
the  common  or  statute  law,  but  has  for 
its  foundation  only  the  agreement  of  the 
operators  and  workmen.  It  has  no  power 
to  enforce  its  judgments,  and  its  findings 
must  necessarily  be  largely  advisory.  Un- 
der such  circumstances,  it  will  easily  be 
seen  that  the  most  careful  investigation 
as  to  the  facts,  and  the  clearest  judgment 
as  to  justice  and  right,  are  necessary  in 
order  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  imme- 
diate parties,  as  well  as  to  the  general 
public,  who  are  deeply  interested  in  the 
ultimate  result  If  the  result  of  the  work 
of  this  commission  is  to  be  a success,  and 
is  to  form  a precedent  for  like  commis- 
sions in  the  future,  then  it  is  a com- 
mencement of  what  may  be  a solution  of 
some  of  the  most  intricate  problems  con- 
nected with  the  labor  question. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  questions,  so  far 
as  they  concern  the  individual  operators 
represented  by  us,  may  be  considered  un- 
der three  genera)  heads: 

1.  Wages. 

2.  Hours  of  labor. 

3.  Non-union  men  and  discrimination. 

First— As  to  wages:  As  this  commis- 

sion derives  its  powers  entirely  from  the 
consent  of  the  parties,  it  may  be  well  to 
refer  to  the  terms  as  stated  by  the  coa.1 
operators  in  their  suggestion  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  this  commission  as  follows: 

“We  suggest  a commission  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  president  of  the  United 
States,  if  he  is  willing  to  perform  that 
service,  to  whom  shall  be  referred  all 
questions  at  issue  between  the  respective 
companies  and  their  own  employes, 
whether  they  belong  to  a union  or  not, 
and  the  decision  of  that  commission  shall 
be  accepted  by  us. 

“We  are  not  discriminating  against  the 
United  Mine  Workers,  but  insist  that  the 
miners’  union  shall  not  discriminate 
against  or  i efuse  to  work  with  non-union 
men;  that  there  shall  be  no  deteriora- 
tion in  quantity  or  quality  of  work,  and 
that,  owing  to  the  varying  physical  con- 
dition of  the  anthracite  mines,  each  col- 
liery is  a problem  by  itself.” 

Lirp.it  of  Jurisdiction. 

This  declaration  by  the  coal  operators 
limits  the  jurisdiction  of  this  commis- 
sion, and  defines  the  method  of  its  ap- 
plication, 


99 


It  will  be  noticed  that  the  “questions 
at  issue”  are  not  between  the  operators 
as  a body,  and  the  workmen  as  another 
body,  but  between  the  respective  com 
panies  and  their  own  employes. 

In  light  of  the  further  statement  con- 
tained in  the  submission,  that  “each  col- 
liery is  a problem  itself,”  it  is  clearly  ap- 
parent that  the  labor  of  this  commission 
involves  the  examination  of  the  differ- 
ences, if  any,  at  each  colliery,  and  an 
adjustment  thereof,  without  much  refer- 
ence to  the  affairs  of  any  other  colliery 
in  the  anthracite  region.  And  this  not 
only  by  the  essential  difference  in  the 
workings,  but  because  it  is  a vital  part 
of  the  charter  from  which  this  commis- 
sion derives  its  authority. 

It  should  be  remembered,  too,  that  the 
adjustment  which  this  commission  is  to 
make  is  between  the  operators  and  their 
employes. 

Who  are  such  employes?  Evidently, 
those  who  are  in  the  employ  of  the  opera- 
tors. There  can  he  none  others.  It  is 
somewhat  remarkable  that  among  other- 
wise intelligent  persons  there  should  pre- 
vail an  impression  that  a different  rule 
of  law  applies  to  the  business  of  coal 
mining  than  is  recognized  in  the  relations 
of  employer  and  employed  in  other  fields 
of  labor.  If  a farm  laborer,  without  a 
contract  for  a certain  length  of  time,  is 
discharged  and  paid  off,  nobody  supposes 
that  he  has  any  further  claim  on  his 
employer.  If  he  should  come  back  at  the 
end  of  four  or  five  months  and  claim  he 
is  entitled  to  his  former  place,  and  even 
at  a higher  rate  of  wages,  he  would  be 
laughed  at.  And  yet  there  is  no  differ- 
ence whatever  in  the  legal  or  moral  rights 
of  a farm  laborer,  and  a coal  miner. 
The  term  “miner's  job,”  when  applied  to 
a miner  out  of  employment,  is  a myth. 
He  has  no  job.  If  he  had  he  would  not 
be  looking  for  work.  It  is  also  a curious 
perversion  of  law  and  logic,  that  though 
the  miner  claims  some  sort  of  estate  in 
reversion  to  his  employment,  even  after 
he  has  abandoned  it,  he  disputes  any 
right  whatever  of  the  employer  to  de- 
mand his  further  services.  He  claims  the 
entire  right  to  select  another  employer, 
but  will  not  admit  the  employer’s  right  to 
select  another  employe.  His  idea  of  his 
labor  relation  is  like  Richard  McHugh's 
instruction  to  his  attorney  when  drawing 
a lease;  which  was  “to  make  it  mighty 
tight  on  one  side  and  mighty  loose  on  the 
othei\” 

We  claim  that  according  to  the  terms 
of  the  submission,  any  question  as  to 
wages  should  he  settled  by  an  examina- 
tion of  the  complaints  and  conditions  at 
each  separate  colliery,  and  that  the  only 
issues  involved  are  those  between  the 
operator  of  each  mine  and  the  men  ac- 
tually in  his  employ. 

Consumer  Must  Pay. 

Again,  we  think  the  commission  be- 
fore taking  any  action  looking  to  the 
increase  of  wages,  should  carefully  con- 
sider upon  whom  such  increase  must  fall. 
Of  course  any  increase  in  cost  of  pro- 
duction ultimately  rests  on  the  consumer. 
A half  cron  of  corn  means  a doubling 
of  the  price,  as  we  have  witnessed  dur- 
ing the  past  year.  If,  by  reason  of  high- 
er wages  and  shorter  days'  work,  the 
cost  of  producing  coal  is  increased  one 
dollar  per  ton,  that  dollar  must  be  added 
to  the  present  cost  to  the  consumer.  The 
shivering  inmates  of  the  east  side  tene- 
ments of  New  York  must  pay  a few 
cents  more  for  each  pail  of  coal  in  order 
to  give  more  wages  to  the  miners  of 


100 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Pennsylvania.  If  this  commission  were 
distributing  a charity  fund,  perhaps  it 
might  hesitate  between  the  needs  of  the 
one  and  the  suffering  of  the  other,  but 
such  is  not  the  case.  There  is  no  author- 
ity to  tax  one  class  of  the  poor  in  order 
to  contribute  to  the  comfort  of  the  other. 
That  is  the  province  of  the  administra- 
tors of  the  poor  laws. 

As  we  understand  it,  one  of  the  chief 
duties  of  the  commission  in  this  case  is 
to  ascertain  the  value  of  labor  m and 
about  the  mines.  It  is  purely  a business 
proposition,  as  much  so  as  the  ascertain- 
ment of  the  price  of  corn  and  sugar  in 
the  open  market.  And  yet  the  large  por- 
tion of  the  evidence  thus  far  has  been 
devoted  to  sympathy.  The  small  boy  in 
the  breaker,  the  sick  woman  in  the  com- 
pany house  and  the  scarred  and  crippled 
miner  in  the  mines  have  figured  very 
largely  in  the  evidence,  and  that  with- 
out the  slightest  relevancy  to  the  issue 
being  tried.  The  labor  of  the  poor  man 
with  half  a dozen  children  working  in 
the  silk  mills  and  living  in  a company 
house,  is  not  worth  a cent  more  than 
that  of  another  man  who  owns  his  own 
home  and  keeps  his  sons  in  college.  It  is 
the  value  of  the  labor,  and  not  the  ne- 
cessities of  the  laborer,  that  we  are  try- 
ing to  ascertain.  The  laborer  is  worthy 
of  his  hire,  but  the  hire  is  fixed  accord- 
ing to  what  he  does  and  not  by  what  he 
needs.  The  merchant  who  wants  for  his 
sugar  a cent  per  pound  above  the  market 
price  because  his  family  need  bread,  will 
get  no  bread  because  he  will  sell  no 
sugar.  Business  is  business,  and  sympa- 
thy is  sympathy,  but  the  two  do  not  run 
together. 

Hours  of  Work. 

Second — As  to  the  length  of  a working 
day: 

This  is  a matter  in  which  the  indi- 
vidual operators  are  particularly  in- 
terested. As  a rule  their  workings  are 
deep,  and  veins  of  coal  are  thick.  They 
necessarily  have  greater  expense  for 
pumping,  and  lifting  the  coal.  The  busi- 
ness itself  necessarily  entails  large  fixed 
charges.  A breaker  must  be  erected,  and 
a shaft  or  slope  sunk,  costly  machinery, 
tracks,  mules  and  mine  cars  provided  be- 
fore a ton  of  coal  is  produced  or  a dollar 
of  money  received.  When  mining  is  com- 
menced the  receipts  from  the  sale  of  coal 
must  not  only  be  enough  to  pay  wages, 
royalties  and  running  expenses,  but  there 
must  be  enough  laid  by  to  reimburse  the 
operator  for  the  money  first  laid  out;  for 
a second-hand  mine  shaft,  breaker  arid 
machinery  are  practically  worthless  af- 
ter the  coal  is  exhausted.  It  may  well 
be  that  the  difference  between  an  eight 
hour  and  a ten  hour  day,  to  the  operator, 
might  mean  the  difference  between  a 
profit  and  a loss.  For  ilustration,  sup- 
pose the  expenses  of  a flour  merchant  are 
eighty  dollars  a day  and  he  sells  ten  bar- 
rels an  hour  at  a profit  of  a dollar  on 
each  barrel.  If  he  works  eight  hours  a 
day  his  profit  is  eighty  dollars,  which 
.iust  balances  his  expenses.  If  he  works 
ten  hours  a day,  his  expenses  are  eighty 
dollars,  and  his  whole  profit  one  hundred 
leaving  a net  profit  of  twenty  dollars  per 
day.  If  the  merchant  were  strictly  bound 
down  to  an  eight  hour  day  he  would  sim- 
ply have  to  go  out  of  business.  There  is 
such  a thing  as  killing  the  goose  that 
lays  the  golden  egg.  An  eight  hour  day 
with  ten  hours’  pay  Is  like  trying  to  make 
eighty  cents  worth  of  silver  worth  a dol- 
lar. It  takes  an  act  of  congress  to  do 
that. 


Indeed,  we  have  heard  very  little  eight 
hour  agitation  at  our  own  mines,  and 
among  our  own  employes.  The  clamor 
seems  to  be  found  almost  entirely  on  the 
stump  and  in  conventions. 

The  varying  conditions  of  work  at  the 
respective  mines  make  it  impossible  to 
lay  down  a hard  and  fast  rule  that  will 
do  equal  justice  to  all  concerned.  If  there 
should  be  an  eight  hour  day  to  accommo- 
date a few  outside  workers  around  the 
breaker,  it  would  stop  at  the  end  of  the 
eight  hour  day.  In  some  mines  it  might 
be  highly  desirable  to  run  the  breaker 
more  hours  in  order  to  clean  up  the  work 
of  the  contract  workers  inside. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  length  of  the 
working  day  may  well  be  left  to  the  op- 
erators and  miners  of  each  colliery,  frr 
they  can  understand  it  better  than  out- 
siders possibly  can. 

An  Inherent  Right 

Third — Persecution  of  non-union  men: 

If  any  award  is  made  by  this  com- 
mission in  favor  of  the  Mine  Workers, 
we  claim  that  as  a condition  precedent 
there  should  be  some  substantial  assur- 
ance on  the  part  of  such  United  Mine 
Workers  that  they  will  in  the  future  re- 
frain from  in  any  way  interfering  with, 
or  molesting  persons  who  wish  to  work 
in  or  about  the  mines,  but  who  do  not 
belong  to  the  union. 

It  is  one  of  the  inherent  rights  of  a 
workman,  under  our  government,  to  sell 
his  labor  wherever  he  pleases,  and  to  per- 
form it  without  interference.  The  first 
section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  Pennsylvania,  provides: 

"All  men  are  born  equally  free  and  in- 
dependent. and  have  certain  inherent  and 
indefeasible  rights,  among  which  are 
those  of  enjoying  and  defending  life  ard 
liberty,  of  acquiring  and  possessing  and 
protecting  property  and  reputation  and 
of  pursuing  their  own  happiness.” 

In  effect  the  strikers  say  that  this  con- 
stitutional provision  does  not  apply  to 
“scabs”  which  is  a polite  way  of  desig- 
nating those  who  do  not  belong  to  their 
association.  The  wanton  persecution  rf 
non-union  men  who  only  ask  to  be  al- 
lowed to  earn  their  daily  bread  in  peace, 
is  a shame  to  those  who  commit  or  allow 
such  persecution,  and  a blot  on  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice  in  the  state  of 
Pennsylvania.  He  who  would  have  equity 
must  do  equity.  Without  the  assistance 
of  mob  violence  and  terrorization,  ro 
strike  could  exist  for  any  great  length  of 
time.  We  could  have  produced  coal  dur- 
ing the  late  strike  in  much  larger  quan- 
tities than  were  actually  mined  if  the 
men  who  desired  to  work  for  us  had  not 
been  stoned  and  beaten,  and  even  threat- 
ened with  death  unless  they  abandoned 
their  work.  Yet,  strange  as  it  may  seem, 
courts  will  listen  patiently  to  the  authors 
of  these  outrages  when  they  complain 
that  we  do  not  re-employ  them,  after 
they  have  done  their  worst  to  destroy  our 
property  and  injure  our  business. 

In  conclusion  we  would  say  that  we  are 
ready  at  any  and  all  times  to  defend  our- 
selves against  any  and  all  complaints 
made  by  our  employes,  to  the  extent  and 
in  the  manner  laid  down  by  the  parties  to 
the  original  submission.  For  weeks  we 
have  patiently  waited  for  proof  that  there 
are  any  "questions  at  issue”  between  our- 
selves and  our  employes,  and,  if  so,  what 
they  are.  We  have  waited  In  vain.  We, 
therefore,  respectfully  ask  this  commis- 
sion to  announce  that  no  further  action 
will  be  taken  in  regard  to  us  until  such 
time  as  it  shall  be  made  to  appear,  by 


proper  allegation  and  proof,  that  there 
are  questions  at  issue  between  ourselves 
and  our  employes  that  are  properly  en- 
titled to  be  heard  by  this  commission. 

I.  H.  BURNS, 

H.  C.  REYNOLDS, 
Attorneys  for  Individual  Operators. 

Question  of  Recognition. 

The  discussion  of  the  question  of 
whether  or  not  recognition  of  the  union 
was  at  issue  was  precipitated  by  Mr. 
Darrow.  After  referring  to  the  con- 
tention of  the  operators  anent  this  mat- 
ter, as  set  forth  in  their  statements,  he 
said  that,  “in  a way,”  the  authority  of 
the  commission  was  given  by  contrast 
and  prescribed  in  the  letter  of  submis- 
sion from  the  operators  and  answer  of 
the  mine  workers  accepting  the  terms 
of  submission.  The  offer  of  submission, 
however,  he  went  on  to  argue,  had  been 
modified  by  the  acceptance  letter  and 
other  things,  and  in  these  modifications, 
the  question  of  the  recognition  of  the 
union — one  of  the  matters  in  dispute  in 
the  strike — had  been  made  an  issue  be- 
for  the  commission. 

Furthermore,  he  said,  the  action  of 
the  respondents  in  accepting  battle  on 
the  recognition  question  when  it  was 
introduced  by  the  miners  placed  the 
question  at  issue.  On  the  miners’  side, 
said  he,  there  is  no  desire  to  limit  the 
scope  of  the  commission’s  investigation, 
but  in  the  argument  of  the  case,  he 
would  insist  that  no  evidence  as  to 
violence  or  attacks  on  the  organization 
or  its  officers  should  be  presented  un- 
less the  question  of  recognition  were  at 
issue.  The  commissioners,  he  contend- 
ed, could  only  listen  to  such  testimony 
on  the  theory  that  the  question  of  rec- 
ognition was  before  them.  Otherwise 
the  testimony  was  not  pertinent. 

Mr.  Wolverton  remarked  that  Mr. 
Darrow’s  contention  might  be  proper 
argument  two  weeks  hence,  at  present 
it  was  not  opportune. 

Mr.  Torrey  argued  that  it  would  be 
utterly  unfair  to  prevent  the  companies 
from  making  answer  to  the  vast 
amount  of  testimony  offered  by  the 
miners  regarding  their  union  after  the 
companies  had  protested  time  and 
again  against  its  introduction. 

Judge  Gray’s  only  remark  was  that 
as  yet  the  commission  had  not  given  it- 
self over  to  any  great  extent  to  ruling 
out  testimony.  Nothing  further,  how- 
ever, came  from  the  commission  on 
"recognition.” 

Have  Had  Hard  Luck. 

In  addition  to  stating  that  the  earn- 
ings they  received  were  divided  among 
four  men  instead  of  two,  as  represented 
by  the  company,  the  fathers  of  the 
little  silk  mill  girls,  who  had  been  criti- 
cized for  allowing  such  small  children 
to  work  nights,  told  of  having  had  ex- 
tremely hard  luck,  as  a further  excuse 
for  their  seeming  lack  of  natural  par- 
ental feeling.  John  Deniko  told  of  bury- 
ing six  children  in  five  years  and  hav- 
ing had  his  wife  in  an  asylum.  Peter 
Shicach  told  of  having  an  invalid  wife 
and  large  family  of  small  children.  His 


iittle  girl  wanted  to  work  in  the  mill 
and  gave  up  a day  job  to  go  on  the 
night  shift.  Judge  Gray  suggested  to 
both  fathers  that  they  ought  to  take 
the  little  girls  out  of  the  mill.  It  would 
be  better,  he  said,  to  get  them  positions 
as  domestics,  if  it  was  really  necessary 
to  have  them  work. 

Major  Warren  disputed  the  claim  of 
the  other  side  that  the  places  of  these 
miners  were  worked  four-handed,  as 
the  system  in  vogue  at  these  collieries 
was  to  work  a place  two-handed. 

Judge  Gray  invited  General  Manager 
May  to  the  stand  to  throw  what  light 
he  could  on  the  question  in  doubt.  Mr. 
May  said  the  company  keeps  no  record 
of  how  many  men  work  in  a place, 
under  a contract  miner.  It  may  be  pos- 
sible, he  admitted,  that  in  the  instances 
in  question  the  places  were  worked 
four-handed,  but  the  likelihood  is,  he 
said,  that  it  was  two-handed,  because 
the  two-handed  system  prevails  at  this 
colliery.  The  matter  would  be  looked 
up,  he  said,  and  the  commission  in- 
formed. He  thought  it  would  be  very 
difficult  to  determine  this,  as  the  com- 
pany has  no  record  of  any  kind  of  how 
many  men  work  on  a contract. 

Judge  Gray  expressed  much  concern 
over  this  matter,  as  it  raised  a ques- 
tion about  the  adequacy  of  all  the 
Pennsylvania  company’s  figures.  He 
particularly  requested  that  the  com- 
mission be  informed  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  earnings  set  forth  in  the  sta- 
tistics applied  to  two  men  or  four  men. 

Mr.  Darrow  was  disposed  to  charac- 
terize as  unfair  the  action  of  the  com- 
pany in  giving  it  out  that  the  wages 
represented  the  earnings  of  two  men 
when  it  was  not  sure  but  that  it  might 
be  for  four  men.  Major  Warren  re- 
marked that  Mr.  Darrow  was  ques- 
tioning the  good  faith  of  Mr.  May.  Mr. 
Darrow  replied  that  he  was  directly 
challenging  Mr.  May’s  good  faith,  and 
repeated  his  assertion  that  the  action 
in  question  was  unfair  and  unjust. 

As  to  Factory  Daws. 

Earl  W.  Bishop,  deputy  factory  in- 
spector in  this  district,  was  the  first  of 
the  commissioners’  witnesses  to  be 
called  to  the  stand.  Judge  Gray  con- 
ducted his  examination.  He  told  that 
his  district  comprises  the  counties  of 
Lackawanna,  Wyoming  and  Wayne, 
and  gave  an  outline  of  what  his  duties 
consist  of  under  the  law. 

Judge  Gray  asked  him  particularly 
about  the  law  requiring  those  between 
the  ages  of  thirteen  and  sixteen  work- 
ing in  factories  to  be  supplied  with  a 
sworn  certificate  showing  their  ages 
and  setting  forth  that  they  can  read 
and  write  English.  Mr.  Bishop  said 
that  when  he  goes  into  a factory  he 
demands  those  certificates  and  looks 
them  over.  If  he  finds  a boy.  or  girl 
between  thirteen  and  sixteen  who  has 
been  employed  without  first  producing 
a certificate,  he  takes  the  employer  to 
task.  Under  the  law  it  is  his  duty  to 
prosecute,  but  it  is  within  his  discretion 
to  forego  prosecution  if  the  employer 


MtNE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

gives  assurance  he  will  not  offend 
again.  He  told  of  one  instance  in  which 
he  prosecuted  an  employer  for  permit- 
ting a girl  to  work  without  first  pre- 
senting a certificate. 

The  certificates  are,  as  a rule,  made 
out  before  some  alderman  or  justice  of 
the  peace,  he  said,  and  admitted  the, 
magistrates  are,  in  some  instances,  ap- 
parently very  lax  in  issuing  Ahem.  The 
inspector  is  bound  by  the  certificate, 
the  witness  declared.  Even  though  the 
inspector  is  satisfied  in  his  own  mind 
that  the  boy  or  girl  is  under  age,  he 
can  do  nothing.  He  can  not  go  behind 
the  certificate. 

In  looking  over  the  Pennsylvania 
statutes  on  child  labor,  Monday,  Judge 
Gray  found  a law  providing  that  no 
person  between  the  ages  of  thirteen 
and  sixteen  shall  be  employed  in  a fac- 
tory or  mill  for  more  than  nine  calen- 
dar months  of  any  one  year,  and  then 
not  unless  he  or  she  has  attended 
school  for  three  months  of  the  year. 
Judge  Gray  read  the  law  to  the  wit- 
ness and  asked  him  if  he  knew  of  its 
existence.  Mr.  Bishop  said  he  had  no 
knowledge  of  any  such  law.  He  pro- 
duced a circular  from  the  state  depart- 
ment of  labor  containing  a digest  of 
the  laws  pertaining  to  the  duties  of  an 
inspector,  and  no  such  law  was  men- 
tioned among  them. 

Judge  Gray  and  a number  of  the 
lawyers  discussed  this  matter  at  some 
length,  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
this  law  must  have  been  repealed  by 
provisions  of  the  new  general  factory 
inspector  law  and  the  compulsory  edu- 
cation law. 

Retrogressive  Legislation. 

The  judge  said  he  hoped  the  legisla- 
ture would  re-enact  this  law,  if  it  is  a 
fact  that  it  has  been  nullified.  He  did 
not  want  to  appear  critical,  but  it 
looked  to  him  as  if  this  was  retro- 
gressive legislating. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  law,  it  de- 
veloped, forbidding  young  children  or 
females  from  being  employed  at  night. 
The  judge  thought  this  would  also  be 
a good  matter  for  the  legislature  to 
take  up. 

The  attention  of  Inspector  Bishop 
was  called  to  a clause  of  the  factory 
laws  providing  that  not  less  than 
forty-five  minutes  shall  be  allowed  em- 
ployes for  their  “noonday”  lunch,  and 
Judge  Gray  asked  him  if  this  was 
strictly  enforced.  He  answered  that  if 
two-thirds  of  the  employes  petition  for 
a shorter  period,  he  permits  it.  They 
frequently  petition,  he  said,  that  they 
may  shorten  the  time  they  will  be  in 
the  factory. 

In  the  counties  of  Lackawanna,  Lu- 
zerne, Wyoming  and  Wayne,  which 
formerly  constituted  his  district,  Mr. 
Bishop  stated  there  were  1,240  boys  and 
1,698  girls  between  the  age  of  thirteen 
and  sixteen  employed  in  mills  and  fac- 
tories. He  had  not  at  hand  the  figures 
in  his  present  district. 

Edward  Roderick,  of  the  First  dis- 
trict was  the  first  of  the  inspectors 


101 

called  to  the  stand.  He  is  often  ac- 
companied by  a boss,  he  said,  when 
making  an  inspection.  It  is  desirable 
to  have  the  boss  along  that  defects  can 
be  pointed  out  to  him  and  suggestions 
made  for  improvements.  The  inspector 
does  not  visit  all  the  working  places 
in  a mine  on  each  inspection,  as  it 
would  be  a physical  impossibility.  He 
uses  his  own  judgment  as  to  what  parts 
of  the  mine  he  will  inspect  and  what 
mines  he  will  inspect  most  often.  Some 
mines  are  inspected  once  a year  and 
some  fifteen  times  a year. 

It  was  probably  true,  he  said,  that 
some  miners  don’t  see  the  inspector 
very  often  because  they  are  out  of  the 
mines  before  the  inspector  reaches  the 
place.  He  has  met  men  coming  out  at 
8 o’clock  in  the  morning,  with  their 
day’s  work  finished.  The  miners  of 
his  district  do  not  average  five  hours' 
work  a day.  The  miners  talk  to  him 
freely  whether  or  not  the  boss  is  pres- 
ent. 

Causes  of  Accidents. 

The  desire  of  the  miners  to  get  out 
early,  carelessness  and  misjudgment,  he 
declared,  were  responsible  for  fifty  per 
cent,  of  the  accidents.  He  suggested 
once  as  a preventive  of  accidents,  that 
the  miner  stay  with  his  laborer  until, 
at  least,  noon,  and  received  letters  from 
Stephen  Reap  and  John  P.  Kearney, 
district  officers  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  complaining  against  his  sug- 
gestion. Some  companies  have  a rule 
requiring  the  miner  to  stay  in  his  place 
until  noon,  but  it  is  not  religiously  ob- 
served. Miners  complain  very  gener- 
ally about  their  inability  to  get  cars. 

He  declared  the  miners  do  not  co- 
operate with  the  inspectors  as  they 
should,  in  his  efforts  to  enforce  the  law. 
He  cited  the  instance  of  the  necessity 
of  getting  an  injunction  to  prevent  the 
working  of  the  Richmond  colliery  at 
Priceburg,  after  he  had  condemned  it 
as  dangerous.  He  only  knew  of  two 
miners  who  were  affected  with  asth- 
ma. 

Mr.  Roderick  admitted  that  he  was  a 
mine  foreman  before  he  was  appointed 
inspector  and  said  he  knew  of  only  one 
inspector,  Patrick  Blewitt,  who  had  not 
been  a foreman  or  mine  official  of  some 
kind  before  becoming  an  inspector.  He 
added  incidentally  that  the  two  new 
inspectors,  the  first  to  be  elected  under 
the  provisions  of  the  miners’  own  law, 
the  Garner  act,  are  mine  foremen.  He 
only  knew  of  one  instance  of  a com- 
pany refusing  to  obey  his  directions. 
That  was  the  Richmond  colliery  inci- 
dent. 

Henry  Owen  Prytherich,  inspector  of 
the  Second  district,  and  Hugh  McDon- 
ald, inspector  of  the  Third  district,  gave 
testimony  along  the  same  general  line. 
Mr.  Prytherich  read  a lengthy  answer 
to  the  question  as  to  why  he  took  a 
mine  boss  with  him  in  making  inspec- 
tions. One  of  the  main  reasons,  he  said, 
was  because  the  boss  could  know  what 
suggestions  he  made  to  miners  and 
thereby  be  checked  from  giving  con- 
flicting orders. 


102 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


E.  E.  Reynolds,  inspector  of  the 
Fourth  district,  also  takes  the  foreman 
with  him  on  his  tours  of  inspection. 
Prior  to  his  appointment  as  inspector 
he  was  a mine  superintendent. 

Ex-Mine  Inspector  William  H.  Davies, 
of  the  Fifth  district,  who  is  now  a sup- 
erintendent for  the  Lehigh  Valley  Coal 
company,  was  next  called.  He  was  in-* 
spector  for  six  years,  resigning  three 
months  ago  to  accept  his  present  posi- 
tion. There  are  123  openings  in  the 
Fifth  district.  The  foreman  accompan- 
ied him  sometimes,  but  quite  as  often 
he  went  about  alone.  He  did  not  ex- 
amine all  the  working  places.  It  was  a 
physical  impossibility.  He  examined 
the  places  he  thought  needed  inspection 
most,  visiting  as  many  as  he  possibly 
could.  Each  mine  was  inspected  three 
or  four  times  a year  in  this  manner. 
The  miners  were  not  deterred  from  talk- 
ing freely  to  him,  because  of  the  fore- 
man being  with  him.  He  received  fre- 
quent complaints  and  always  investi- 
gated them.  Mr.  Davies,  too,  was  a 
mine  foreman  before  becoming  an  in- 
spector. 

It  was  absolutely  impossible,  the  wit- 
ness declared,  to  observe  the  new  in- 
spection law — the  Garner  act — requiring 
an  inspection  of  every  working  place. 

Wilbur  Stein,  of  Shenandoah,  inspect- 
or of  the  Sixth  district,  also  declared  it 
was  impossible  to  visit  all  the  breasts 
on  an  inspection  tour.  Some  collieries 
require  inspection  fifteen  times  a year 
and  some  only  once.  It  depends  on  his 
own  judgment  as  to  the  necessity  for 
inspection.  The  boss  always  accompan- 
ies him  on  his  tour  of  inspection.  He 


sees  miners  going  home  from  work  at 
2 or  3 o’clock  in  the  afternoon,  and 
others  at  6.30  o’clock.  He  knew  that 
miners  complain  generally  about  the 
companies  failing  to  give  them  a full 
supply  of  cars. 

John  McGuire,  ex-inspector  of  the 
Seventh  district,  resigned  last  May  to 
become  division  superintendent  of  a 
coal  company.  He  was  a foreman  prior 
to  becoming  inspector.  The  foreman 
usually  accompanied  him  when  he 
made  an  inspection  of  a mine.  It  was 
impossible  to  examine  all  the  workings 
in  a mine.  Some  contained  fifty  miles 
of  roads.  He  received  few  complaints 
orally  from  the  miners.  He  often,  how- 
ever, received  letters  containing  com- 
plaints, especially  about  the  failure  of 
the  company  to  hoist  men  when  five  as- 
semble at  the  foot.  Some  complaints 
were  about  poor  ventilation.  Miners 
get  through  work  anywhere  from  2 to 
5 o’clock. 

Non-Union  Men’s  Case. 

The  non-union  men’s  case  was  open- 
ed by  Mr.  Lenahan  reading  excerpts 
from  the  correspondence  leading  up  to 
the  submission,  bearing  on  the  provis- 
ion that  all  employes  “whether  they  be- 
long to  a union  or  not”  were  to  be  par- 
ties to  the  hearings. 

Mr.  O’Brien  then  proceeded  to  exam- 
ine witnesses.  The  killing  of  James 
Winston  at  Grassy  Island  by  a crowd 
of  strikers  was  told  of  by  the  widow 
and  the  victim’s  son-in-law,  Samuel  J. 
Lewis.  Thomas  Watkins,  financial  sec- 
retary of  the  Grassy  Island  local  tes- 
tified, with  some  show  of  reluctance, 


th.at  the  three  men  indicted  for  the 
murder  are  union  men.  It  was  also 
brought  out  that  prior  to  the  strike,  the 
murdered  man  and  those  accused  of 
killing  him  were  on  friendly  terms. 

John  Flanaghan  told  of  a crowd  of 
forty  strikers  holding  him  up,  on  his 
way  from  work  at  Dunmore  No.  1 col- 
liery of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company 
and  putting  a rope  around  his  neck. 
One  of  the  men  in  the  crowd,  he  said, 
was  a delegate  to  the  Indianapolis  con- 
vention of  the  United  Mine  Workers. 

Fire  Boss  Charles  Beatty  related  ho  v 
District  Board  Member  Stephen  Reap 
led  a bolt  of  strikers  from  St.  Patrick's 
church,  Olyphant,  because  of  the  pres- 
ence of  the  witness,  who  was  a non- 
striker. He  also  told  that  if  the  pumps 
at  the  colliery  where  he  worked  were 
shut  down  for  forty-eight  hours  they 
would  be  under  water  and  it  would 
take  two  years  to  reclaim  the  mine  once 
it  was  flooded.  He  could  not  get  any 
Olyphant  storekeeper  to  deliver  goods 
to  him.  It  was  necessary  for  him  to 
get  his  provisions  in  such  small  quan- 
tities as  his  children  could  carry.  A 
typewritten  notice  given  a merchant  di- 
recting him  not  to  sell  goods  to  the  wit- 
ness under  penalty  of  the  boycott,  was 
presented,  but  as  the  witness  would  not 
give  the  naime  of  the  merchant  from 
whom  the  notice  was  gotten.  Judge 
Gray  refused  to  admit  it  as  evidence. 

George  W.  Bowen.  John  Murphy. 
David  Lewis,  Fred  Reynolds  and 
Charles  Grosswick  were  also  sworn  col- 
lectively at  the  opening  of  the  non- 
union men’s  case  and  will  be  heard  to- 
day. 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Dec.  IS. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec  19.] 


Tales  of  the  sufferings  of  non-union 
men  and  their  families  during  the 
strike  formed  the  burden  of  the  testi- 
mony before  the  mine  strike  commis- 
sion, yesterday.  More  than  a score  of 
witnesses  told  of  their  sorry  experi- 
ences, of  assaults,  boycotting,  threats, 
intimidation  and  petty  annoyances  un- 
counted. The  direct  examinations  were 
conducted  by  Attorneys  Joseph  O’Brien 
and  John  T.  Lenahan.  The  miners’  at- 
torneys did  not  do  much  cross-exam- 
ining, contenting  themselves  with  an 
occasional  effort  to  make  it  appear  that 
union  men  did  not  commit  the  vio- 
lence. 

There  was  considerable  objection  on 
the  part  of  the  miners’  attorneys  be- 
cause the  evidence  tending  to  prove 
boycotting  was  for  the  most  part  in- 
direct, but  the  commission  refused  to 
sustain  the  objections. 

Chairman  Gray  said  the  commission 
was  not  bound  by  any  strict  rules  of 
evidence,  but  would  like  counsel  to 
confine  themselves  as  far  as  possible  to 
direct  evidence. 

It  was  difficult,  he  said,  In  proving 
the  existence  of  boycotts,  to  get  the 
best  evidence  on  the  subject.  The  com- 


mission, he  said,  wanted  to  know  about 
the  alleged  reign  of  terror  during  the 
strike,  and  realized  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  get  information  about  it  from 
witnesses  if  the  strict  rules  of  evidence 
were  aDolied. 

“The  coward  who  will  go  to  the 
storekeepers,”  said  he,  “and  warn  them 
not  to  sell  the  necessaries  of  life  to  a 
woman,  whose  husband  chooses  to 
work,  can  be  counted  upon  to  seek  the 
obscurity  which  the  rules  of  evidence 
provide  for  him.  If  a girl  is  dis- 
charged from  her  position  in  a store 
because  she  rode  on  a street  car  dur- 
ing a street  car  strike,  the  coward  who 
discharged  her  is  coward  enough  to  re- 
fuse to  testify.” 

Realizes  the  Cause. 

He  recognized,  he  said,  why  some 
merchants  will  not  come  forward  and 
tell  who  forced  them  to  refuse  to  sell 
necessaries  of  life  to  boycotted  per- 
sons, but  if  he  were  a storekeeper,  he 
thought,  he  would  risk  his  all  to  as- 
sist in  breaking  up  the  cowardly  boy- 
cott business. 

The  first  witness  of  the  day  was  Fred 
Reynolds,  who  was  a pumprunner  dur- 


ing the  strike  at  the  Bellevue  colliery 
of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  company  in  this  city.  John 
Francis,  a union  man,  shot  at  him  four 
times,  on  July  5,  after  having  threat- 
ened a few  days  before  that  he  would 
kill  him  if  he  did  not  stop  work.  Fran- 
cis was  tried  and  convicted,  and  sen- 
tenced to  three  months  In  jail  and  a 
fine  of  $25. 

Joseph  Hoffman,  of  Drifton,  went  on 
strike,  but  when  the  union  refused  to 
give  him  any  financial  assistance,  he 
was  forced  to  return  to  work.  One 
night  a crowd  of  fifty  or  sixty  attacked 
his  home.  He  crawled  to  the  garret, 
broke  through  the  roof,  crawled  across 
to  a neighbor’s  house  and  escaped.  He 
went  six  miles  through  the  woods  to 
his  mother’s  home  in  Eckley. 

When  the  crowd  forced  an  entrance 
to  his  house  and  found  him  gone,  it 
smashed  the  furniture  and  terrorized 
his  wife  and  children. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  McCarthy 
sought  to  make  it  appear  that  the  at- 
tack was  made  by  a crowd  of  mischiev- 
ous youths,  who  had  been  drinking  a 
keg  of  beer  in  an  adjacent  field.  The 
witness  couldn’t  see  it  that  way. 


John  Hoffman,  brother  of  the  pre- 
ceding witness,  and  Ellen  Hoffman,  the 
wife,  also  told  of  the  attack  and, 
furthermore,  that  some  one  overturned 
the  stove  and  set  the  house  afire.  They 
extinguished  it  with  the  help  of  a next- 
door  neighbor. 

Duncan  McIntyre,  a Delaware,  Lack- 
awanna and  Western  blacksmith  from 
Nanticoke,  testified  that  because  he  re- 
fused to  quit  work  he  was  hung  in 
effigy  three  times  and  once  an  indecent 
effigy  of  his  wife  was  suspended  along- 
side his  own.  One  day  when  he  was 
returning  from  work  he  saw  a crowd 
of  boys  dragging  his  wife’s  effigy 
through  the  streets.  A number  of  men 
were  encouraging  them.  The  effigy 
was  tied  to  a post  in  front  of  his  home. 
His  wife,  who  was  about  to  become  a 
mother,  was  seriously  affected  by  the 
affair. 

Mrs.  James  McNamara,  of  Parsons, 
the  wife  of  a Delaware  and  Hudson 
engineer  who  worked  during  the  strike, 
told  that  one  night,  while  her  husband 
was  away,  herself  and  infant  narrowly 
escaped  being  cremated  by  a fire, 
which  she  could  not  account  for. 

Mr.  Darrow,  on  cross-examination, 
asked  the  witness  if  she  accused  the 
union  of  setting  the  house  afire. 

Judge  Gray  remarked:  “I  feel  that 

the  commission  will  be  disposed  to  be- 
lieve the  fire  was  of  incendiary  origin, 
Mr.  Darrow.” 

John  Trunble,  of  Plymouth,  a Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  ma- 
chinist, told  of  being  chased  by  crowds 
of  strikers,  of  his  wife  being  refused 
meat  by  two  butchers. 

A printed  list  of  112  non-union  men, 
with  the  superscription  that  they  were 
“unfair”  and  “deserving  of  the  con- 
tempt of  mankind,”  which  had  been 
posted  in  Kingston,  was  offered  in  evi- 
dence and  accepted. 

Fallon  Did  Not  Know. 

John  Fallon,  a member  of  the  na- 
tional board  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, was  called  to  the  stand  and  ex- 
amined by  Mr.  Lenahan.  He  denied 
that  he  knew  the  Courier-Herald  was 
the  organ  of  the  Central  Labor  union 
of  Wilkes-Barre,  or  that  it  had  pub- 
lished a boycott  list.  He  admitted  that 
he  secured  bail  for  union  men  arrested 
for  strike  violence. 

William  Myles,  a Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  pumprunner,  told 
of  a barber  refusing  to  shave  him,  and 
of  a butcher  refusing  to  sell  his  wife 
meat. 

William  Sehuech,  sr.,  outside  foreman 
at  the  Lehigh  Valley  Coal  company’s 
No.  40  colliery,  in  Hazleton,  gave  testi- 
mony that  tended  slightly,  at  least,  to 
contradict  the  miners’  witnesses  who 
stated  that  Hazleton  during  the  strike 
was  a second  Peaceful  valley. 

On  August  24,  the  newspapers  an- 
nounced that  No.  40  colliery  would  re- 
sume operation  on  the  following  Mon- 
day. On  the  following  Monday,  Seheuc-h, 
while  on  his  way  to  work,  saw  a crowd 
of  strikers  assaulting  his  son.  He  ran 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

up  to  rescue  his  son,  and  as  he  ap- 
proached, so  he  says,  ’Squire  McKelvy 

called  out:  “Here’s  the  old . 

Pitch  into  him.”  The  crowd  diverted 
its  attention  from  the  son  and  directed 
it  to  the  father.  When  the  latter  woke 
up  three  days  later  in  the  hospital,  he 
found  he  had  three  stab  wounds,  two 
ribs  broken  on  the  left  side  and  three 
on  the  right,  a gash  in  his  scalp  and 
bruises  on  every  part  of  his  body.  The 
witness  averred  that  ’Squire  McKelvy 
led  the  attack  and  that  the  fifty  men 
in  the  mob  were  strikers. 

“You  were  a coal  and  iron  policeman, 
were  you  not?”  asked  General  Wilson. 

“Yes,  sir,”  said  the  witness. 

“Why  did  you  not  use  your  gun?” 
queried  the  general. 

“Well,  I was  afraid  I would  hit  my 
son,  who  was  in  the  midst  of  the 
crowd,”  Schuech  answered. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  McCarthy 
tried  to  make  it  appear  that  ’Squire 
McKelvy  interfered  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  saving  the  Schuechs  from  the 
mob,  and  that  the  attack  was  provoked 
by  the  elder  Schuech  being  too  officious 
as  a coal  and  iron  policeman,  but  the 
witness  would  not  agree  with  him  in 
either  regard. 

Corroborated  by  Son. 

William  Schuech,  jr.,  corroborated 
his  father’s  account  of  the  assault,  and 
asserted  emphatically  that  ’Squire  Mc- 
Kelvy incited  the  mob  to  the  assault. 

Mrs.  George  Richardson,  of  Parsons, 
told  of  her  husband  being  threatened, 
her  son  assailed,  and  of  merchants  re- 
fusing her  goods  because  her  husband 
continued  to  work  as  a fireman  at  the 
Laurel  Run  colliery  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company. 

Her  husband,  she  said,  was  a fireboss 
at  the  Laurel  Run,  and  during  the 
strike  acted  as  a fireman  to  help  keep 
the  pumps  going.  The  day  after  the 
steam  men  were  called  out,  her  boy, 
who  worked  in  the  Wilkes-Barre  Lace 
company’s  mill,  came  home,  bearing  a 
note,  which  read  as  follows: 

“George  Richardson: 

“As  long  as  you  are  an  unfair  work- 
man we  won’t  work  with  your  son. 

“(Signed)  Brass  Bobbin  Winders  of 
Wilkes-Barre  Lace  Mill.” 

The  witness  said  she  found  out,  after- 
wards, that  Manager  Doran,  of  the  lace 
mill,  knew  nothing  of  her  boy  being 
sent  home,  with  the  note. 

Mrs.  Richardson  also  told  that  Bur- 
gess Davis,  of  Parsons,  who  keeps  a 
butcher  shop,  refused  to  sell  her  meat, 
because  the  mine  workers  had  threat- 
ened to  boycott  him  if  he  did.  Grocer 
Sward  told  her  that  the  strikers’  com- 
mittee had  notified  him  not  to  sell  her 
provisions.  He  ignored  the  notice. 
Milkman  Winterstein  also  ignored  a 
notice  to  quit  selling  her  milk. 

Henry  Vermillye.  of  Luzerne  bor- 
ough, a veteran  of  the  Civil  war,  who 
did  not  like  the  way  the  union  was 
carrying  on  and  who  therefore  refused 
to  join  it,  told  a long  story  of  his  trials 
and  tribulations. 


103 

He  was  working  for  J.  C.  Haddock  as 
a company  hand  doing  repair  work. 
George  W.  Carey,  the  foreman,  and 
Patrick  Kelly,  the  fireboss,  came  to 
him,  he  said,  and  requested  him  to  join 
the  union,  saying  that  the  union  threat- 
ened to  shut  down  the  colliery  if  he  did 
not  join  the  union  or  was  not  dis- 
charged. The  witness  told  the  bosses 
he  would  rather  not  join  the  union,  but 
at  their  earnest  solicitation,  after  four 
days,  he  consented  to  join.  He  paid  $3 
initiation  fee  and  became  a member. 

Wouldn’t  Buy  Button. 

When  the  strike  came  on,  a commit- 
tee from  the  local  notified  the  boss  that 
the  witness  could  only  work  every 
other  week  at  his  repair  work.  The 
witness  did  not  take  kindly  to  this  and 
when,  a few  days  later,  an  officer  of 
the  union  told  him  he  would  have  to 
buy  and  wear  a union  button  or  quit 
work,  he  quit  work,  and  went  into  the 
employ  of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  company  as  a watchman 
at  the  Pettebone  colliery. 

He  was  hung  in  effigy,  a grave  mound 
was  constructed  on  one  of  the  princi- 
pal streets  and  a “tombstone”  of  wood, 
with  his  initials  on  it,  erected  above 
the  mound,  he  was  hooted,  jeered  and 
stoned  as  he  came  and  went  to  and 
from  his  work,  merchants  were  notified 
not  to  sell  him  goods,  his  daughter  was 
called  vile  names  as  she  passed  along 
the  street  and  his  name  was  posted  on 
two  printed  boycott  lists.  On  account 
of  the  annoyances  to  which  his  family 
was  subjected,  he  had  to  move  from 
Luzerne  to  Dorranceton. 

When  the  witness  was  starting  to 
tell  what  his  wife  had  told  him  about 
the  coal  man  and  milkman  having  been 
warned  against  supplying  them  w'ith 
their  wares,  Mr.  Darrow  vigorously  ob- 
jected on  the  grounds  that  it  was  hear- 
say evidence. 

Judge  Gray  said  that  if  Mr.  Darrow 
would  insist  on  his  objection  the  evi- 
dence could  not  be  received  under  the 
general  rules  of  legal  investigation. 

“Why  do  you  object,  Mr.  Darrow?” 
inquired  General  Wilson.  “Is  it  be- 
cause your  side  is  afraid  to  hear  this 
man’s  story?” 

Mr.  Darrow'  explained  that  he  object- 
ed because  the  evidence  was  second- 
hand. 

Sought  to  Save  Time. 

Mr.  Lenahan  stated  that  under  the 
strict  rules  of  evidence  the  evidence,  of 
course,  w'as  not  admissible,  but  if  the 
strict  rules  of  evidence  wrere  to  be  en- 
forced and  he  was  compelled  to  call 
every  member  of  a non-union  man’s 
family,  instead  of  one,  to  tell  the  ex- 
periences of  that  family,  the  commis- 
sion would  have  to  sit  for  a year.  He 
washed  only  to  save  time.  At  all  events, 
he  added,  the  other  side  had  been  per- 
mitted to  give  hearsay  evidence.  Presi- 
dent Mitchell,  Mr.  Lenahan  explained, 
was  freely  allowed  to  tell  what  others 
had  told  him. 

The  commissioners  consulted  for  a 
few  moments,  and  Judge  Gray  an- 


104 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


nounced  that  they  would  hear  any- 
thing' the  witness  had  to  tell  that  he 
heard  from  members  of  his  own  house- 
hold. 

John  Doran,  general  manager  of  the 
Wilkes-Barre  lace  works  testified  that 
the  second  day  after  the  steam  men 
were  called  out,  a committee  of  his 
employes  came  to  him  and  stated  that 
if  he  didn’t  discharge  all  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  the  steam  men  who  had 
refused  to  obey  the  call,  they  would 
inaugurate  a strike.  He  refused  the 
demand,  and  the  next  morning  the  1,- 
150  employes  quit  work.  The  strike 
lasted  seven  weeks.  The  employes  re- 
turned to  work  without  the  demand 
being  granted.  The  seven  unions  rep- 
resented in  the  mill  were  also  required 
to  sign  an  agreement  not  to  strike 
again  until  after  arbitration  had  failed 
to  settle  any  differences  that  might 
arise. 

Case  Todd,  a Plymouth  hoisting  en- 
gineer, employed  by  the  D.,  L.  & W. 
company,  told  that  he  refused  to  strike 
and  that  he  was  subjected,  in  conse- 
quence, to  many  annoyances.  He  was 
hung  in  effigy  and  four  strikers 
stopped  a plumber  who  was  called  by 
him  to  repair  his  bath  room. 

John  Frederick,  an  engineer  at  the 
Bliss  colliery  of  the  D.,  L.  & W.  com- 
pany at  Hanover,  refused  to  go  on 
strike  and  was  one  day  assaulted  by  a 
crowd  of  men  and  women  and  pain- 
fully injured.  An  effort  was  made  by 
the  strikers  to  prevent  him  from  get- 
ting provisions  from  the  merchants  of 
the  town. 

Threatened  and  Stoned. 

Edward  Whitehead,  another  Bliss 


engineer,  who  would  not  quit  work, 
told  of  being  threatened,  boycotted 
and  stoned.  Lee  & Scouten,  of  Wan- 
amie,  were  warned  not  to  sell  him 
goods  but  did  not  heed  the  warning. 

Bruce  Parker,  pump  runner  for  the 
D.,  L.  & W.  company,  at  Nanticoke, 
refused  to  strike,  had  his  name  pub- 
lished on  a boycott  list  and  one  night 
his  house  was  besieged  by  a crowd  of 
stone  throwers.  He  raised  the  siege  by 
discharging  a shotgun  from  the  front 
porch. 

George  Grossewicz,  of  Scranton,  had 
a long  and  sorry  story  to  tell.  Dur- 
ing the  street  car  strike  in  1901,  he 
had  occasion  to  go  to  Petersburg  and 
rode  on  a car,  not  being  able  to  walk 
on  account  of  rheumatism.  He  be- 
longed to  the  United  Mine  Workers 
and  was  attached  to  the  local  at  the 
Archbald  colliery,  where  he  was  a con- 
tract miner.  The  president  of  the  lo- 
cal spread  the  word  throughout  the 
mine  that  he  rode  on  a street  car  and 
that  he  was  engaged  by  the  street  car 
company  at  $5  a day  to  act  as  a hired 
passenger  to  encourage  others  to  ride. 
A committee  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers tried  to  have  him  discharged  and 
after  apealing  in  vain  to  the  foreman, 
the  district  superintendent,  and  Gen- 
eral Manager  Loomis,  proceeded  to 
make  it  impossible  for  him  to  work  by 
preventing  him  from  getting  a laborer 
and  then  derailing  one  of  his  cars  in 
his  chamber  and  refusing  to  help  him 
get  it  on  the  track.  For  seven  days 
his  chamber  was  blocked.  Finally  the 
foreman  and  fireboss  helped  him  put 
the  car  back  on  the  rails.  The  local 
passed  a resolution  imposing  a fine  of 


$5  on  any  man  who  helped  him  or  any 
laborer  who  worked  for  him. 

A crowd  of  miners  in  the  rear  of  the 
room  laughed  heartily  as  Grossewicz 
told  his  tribulations. 

He  worked  during  the  last  strike  In 
different  places.  Crowds  met  him  daily 
near  his  home  and  stoned  him.  His 
landlord,  John  Carroll,  of  Filmore 
avenue,  a mine  worker,  order  him  to 
quit  the  house,  and  threatened  to  take 
off  the  doors  to  force  him  out  despite 
the  fact  that  he  had  a little  child  down 
with  fever.  He  stayed  around  the  house 
until  the  landlord  changed  his  mind 
about  taking  down  the  doors. 

George  W.  Bowen,  the  North  Scran- 
ton bard,  was  the  lasr  witness  of  the 
day.  He  was  a coal  inspector  before 
the  strike,  and  during  the  strike  served 
as  a watchman  at  the  D.,  L.  & W. 
company’s  Storrs  colliery. 

He  told  grandiloquently  of  experi- 
ences at  the  “gray  of  dawn,”  exploited 
his  activities  as  watchman  in  military 
terms  that  brought  appreciative  smiles 
to  the  face  of  General  Wilson  and  read 
from  a diary,  which  he  had  religiously 
kept  during  the  strike,  the  day,  place 
and  minute  circumstances  of  the  var- 
ious instances  by  which  his  neighbors 
evidenced  their  displeasure  at  his  re- 
fusal to  join  the  strikers’  ranks. 

He  was  repeatedly  stoned,  once  he 
was  fired  upon  from  ambush,  his  chil- 
dren were  beaten  and  his  house  at- 
tacked, but  worst  of  all  he  found  on 
his  first  visit  to  the  rooms  of  the  North 
End  Glee  club,  of  which  he  was  pres- 
ident, that  the  picture  of  himself, 
which  he  has  presented  to  the  club, 
was  turned  towards  the  wall. 


Proceedings  of  Friday,  Dec.  19. 

[Urom  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  Dec.  20.] 


Another  day  was  spent  by  the  mine 
strike  commission  yesterday,  listening 
to  tales  of  the  sufferings  the  non-union 
men  endured  during  the  strike.  The 
stories,  substantially,  were  a repetition 
of  those  of  the  day  before.  Dynamiting, 
boycotting,  bombarding  houses,  shoot- 
ing, stabbing,  clubbing,  hanging  in  ef- 
figy, threats,  intimidation  and  terroriz- 
ing in  general  were  detailed  from  the 
witness  stand  by  men,  women  and 
children  in  a manner  which  could  not 
help  but  convince  the  commissioners 
that  the  “inalienable  constitutional 
right”  of  a man  to  sell  his  labor  when 
where  and  how  he  chooses  was,  to  say 
the  least,  seriously  questioned  in  the 
territory  covered  by  the  strike. 

Attorneys  Joseph  O’Brien  and  John 
T.  Lenahan,  who  conducted  the  direct 
examinations,  were  particularly  zealous 
in  bringing  the  various  offenses  to  the 
door  of  the  union.  In  many  instances 
they  showed  immediately  or  inferen- 
tially  that  officers  of  locals  were  the 
leading  offenders.  Attorneys  Darrow, 
McCarthy  and  Murphy,  who  are  the 
cross-examiners  for  the  miners  devoted 


most  of  their  energies  to  efforts  at  dis- 
proving or  throwing  doubt  on  the 
charges  that  the  union  had  any  connec- 
tion with  terrorizing.  President  Mit- 
chell was  constantly  suggesting  ques- 
tions to  the  attorneys  to  aid  these  ef- 
forts. 

Judge  Gray  frequently  inquired  of 
witnesses  as  to  whether  or  not  they  had 
taken  other  men’s  places.  When  it 
was  shown  that  the  man  had  simply 
continued  at  his  own  job  or  took  a 
new  place  created  by  reason  of  the 
strike,  such  as  extra  watchman  or  the 
like,  Judge  Gray  made  some  sign  or 
comment  indicating  his  appreciation  of 
the  significance  of  this. 

Pretty  Fair  Wages. 

In  the  non-unionists'  ” statement  filed 
at  the  opening  of  the  case,  claim  is  in- 
cidentally made  for  increased  wages. 
Several  times,  yesterday,  Mr.  Darrow, 
on  cross-examination,  would  remark 
that  the  non-unionists’  lawyers  had 
neglected  to  ask  him  anything  about 
the  demand  for  higher  wages  and  then 
would  question  the  witness  as  to  his 


views  on  this  point.  The  witness,  as 
a rule,  would  say  he  .was  getting  pretty 
fair  wages,  but  would  like  something 
more  if  he  could  get  it. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion Judge  Gray  made  reference  to  the 
incident  regarding  the  apparent  dis- 
crepancies between  the  statements 
made  by  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  com- 
pany concerning  the  wages  paid  the 
fathers  of  the  Dunmore  silk'  mill  girls 
and  the  claims  of  their  fathers  as  to 
what  their  wages  really  were.  The 
judge  said: 

“In  justice  to  Major  Warren  and  Mr. 
May  it  is  only  fair  to  state  that  there 
was  not  the  slightest  imputation  of 
their  good  faith.  What  the  chairman 
said  was  that  a mistake — a natural  one 
under  the  circumstances — if  a mistake 
was  made,  tended  to  shake  the  faith  of 
the  commission  in  the  statistics  that 
had  been  filed.  Since  then,  I want  to 
say,  the  commission  has  learned  from 
Dr.  Neill,  the  assistant  recorder,  with 
whom  the  statistics  were  filed,  that, 
in  filing  them,  the  auditor  specifically 
called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 


company  had  ho  moans  of  knowing 
whether  the  money  paid  the  contract 
miner — the  only  one  the  company  deals 
with — represented  the  earning's  of  two, 
three  or  four  men.  Major  Warren  and 
Mr.  May  were  deceived  by  information 
gathered  over  the  telephone,  hurriedly. 
It  was  either  given  to  them  incorrectly 
or  they  misinterpreted  it.  If  a wrong 
impression  has  been  created  by  the 
remarks  of  the  chairman  on  that  occas- 
ion. I trust  this  statement  will  correct 
it.” 

Two  Handed  Places. 

Major  Warren  said,  in  way  of  ex- 
planation, that  the  collieries  where  the 
men  in  question  worked  are  designated 
on  the  company’s  books  as  “two-hand- 
ed” places,  and  it  was  naturally  be- 
lieved that  these  men  worked  two- 
handed.  The  company  was  not  yet  ad- 
mitting that  the  men  worked  four- 
handed,  at  least  not  for  any  consider- 
able part  of  the  time,  and  was  getting 
exact  information  in  the  matter. 

Much  amusement  was  created  during 
the  first  hour  of  the  morning  by  Mr. 
Darrow’s  cross-examination  of  George 
W.  Bowen,  of  North  Scranton,  the 
poet-miner,  who  deserted  the  union,  in 
the  last  strike  and  worked  as  a watch- 
man at  the  Storrs  colliery  of  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  com- 
pany. 

lake  Rev.  Dr.  Roberts,  Mr.  Bowen 
had  written  a book — “The  Legend  of  the 
Mines  and  Other  Poems.”  The  book 
was  published  while  Mr.  Bowen  was  ap- 
parently an  enthusiastic  union  man  and 
contained  some  strong  lines  lauding 
Mitchell,  and  unionism  in  general,  and 
anathemizing  men  who  would  work 
during  the  strike. 

When  Mr.  Darrow  started  in  to  parade 
before  Mr.  Bowen  these  musings  of  an- 
other day,  the  witness  forestalled  him 
end  emphatically  declared  that  his  ut- 
terances regarding  unions  were 
“shielded  satire.”  After  hearing  some 
of  them,  Judge  Gray  Was  moved  to  re- 
mark: "Mr.  Bowen,  you  were  too  care- 

ful in  shielding  your  satire.” 

Mr.  Darrow  closely  approached  being 
inconsiderate  of  Mr.  Bowen’s  finer  sen- 
sibilities in  some  of  his  comments.  His 
parting  shot  was  the  rnost  unkindest 
cut  of  all. 

“You  sold  a large  number  of  your 
books,  did  you  not,  Mr.  Bowen?”  asked 
Mr.  Darrow. 

“Two  editions,”  proudly  replied  the 
poet. 

"Now,  honestly,  Mr.  Bowen.”  said 
Mr.  Darrow,  “don’t  you  think  the  peo- 
ple who,  you  say,  threw  stones  at  you 
were  those  who  bought  your  book?” 

The  witness  would  not  deign  a reply. 
Anyhow,  it  would  not  have  been  heard 
for  a full  minute. 

During  his  recital  of  the  wrongs  to 
which  he  had  been  subjected,  Mr. 
Bowen,  among  other  things,  told  about 
his  little  home  having  been  attacked 
and,  with  a vehemence  that  would  not 
be  looked  for  in  one  of  his  nature,  he 
declared:  “If  my  home  had  been  de- 

stroyed by  those  union  men,  I would 


Mine  strike  commission 

have  held  John  Mitchell  responsible  for 
it  with  his  life!”  Mr.  Mitchell  smiled. 

Col.  H.  M.  Boies,  to  whom  the  book 
is  dedicated,  was  an  interested  listener 
to  the  cross-examination. 

James  Elias,  of  Richmondale,  testi- 
fied that  his  house  was  dynamited  after 
strikers  had  threatened  him.  Two  of 
those  who  made  the  threats  were  mem- 
bers of  the  United  Mine  Workers.  Alex- 
ander Solomon  made  a threat  on  Sat- 
urday and  the  house  was  dynamited 
the  next  Monday  night.  Another  threat 
was  made  to  him  by  a Polander  at  5 
o’clock  on  the  evening  of  the  dynamit- 
ing. 

Wife  and  Child  at  Home. 

He,  his  wife  and  eight-year-old  child 
were  in  the  house  when  the  dynamit- 
ing took  place.  The  bomb  was  put  on 
the  front  porch.  It  broke  down  the 
front  door  and  smashed  all  the  win- 
dows. 

James  Fahey,  of  Buffalo,  special 
agent  of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  company,  was  called  to 
show  that  the  Courier-Herald,  official 
organ  of  the  Central  Labor  union  of 
Wilkes-Barre,  which  printed  boycott 
lists,  has  as  one  of  its  proprietors, 
Charles  Thane,  who  is  a member  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers,  and  who  was 
an  organizer  for  the  union.  Objection 
was  made  by  Mr.  Darrow,  and  Presi- 
dent Mitchell  protested  that  the  United 
Mine  Workers  had  no  control  over  or 
connection  with  the  paper. 

Mr.  Lenahan  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  at  the  head  of  the  Courier- 
Herald  is  printed  “Owned  by  the  Cen- 
tral Labor  union”;  that  the  United 
Mine  Workers  is  one  of  the  organiza- 
tions allied  with  the  Central  Labor 
union,  and  that,  although  Mr.  Mitchell 
lived  in  Wilkes-Barre  many  months, 
not  far  from  the  office  of  the  Courier- 
Herald,  he  never  repudiated  the  dec- 
laration of  the  paper  that  it  was  owned 
by  an  organization  of  which  his  union 
was  a part. 

Mr.  Lenahan  also  wanted  to  show 
that  National  Board  Member  Fallon, 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  made  ef- 
forts to  get  bail  for  Editor  Thane,  when 
he  was  arrested  for  criminal  libel  by 
some  of  the  boycotted  parties,  but 
Judge  Gray  refused  to  accept  the  tes- 
timony, because  it  did  not  bring  re- 
sponsibility home  to  the  United  Mine 
Workers. 

Mr.  Lenahan  read  from  the  Courier- 
Herald  a list  of  the  “We  Don’t  Patron- 
ize” articles.  Among  them  were  sev- 
eral brands  of  cuffs.  “I  suppose,”  sug- 
gested Judge  Gray,  “they  don’t  patron- 
ize the  brand  of  cuffs  the  non-union 
men  have  been  getting.” 

Max  Lazar,  of  South  Washington 
avenue  flats,  who  remained  at  work  at 
the  Dodge  colliery  of  the  Delaware. 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company,  in 
this  city,  testified  that  late  one  night, 
while  he  was  watching  from  his  up- 
stairs window,  he  saw  a man  throw 
something  into  his  house  through  an 
open  window  in  the  lower  part  of  the 


105 

house.  He  rushed  down,  and,  on  the 
floor  of  a bed  room,  where  some  of  his 
children  were  asleep,  found  a bottle  of 
powder  with  a lighted  squib  inserted 
in  its  neck.  He  extinguished  the  squib 
and  preserved  the  bottle. 

The  Bottle  Exhibited. 

Special  Officer  T.  V.  Lewis  exhibited 
the  “bottle.”  It  was  of  a quart  cap- 
acity and  filled  to  the  neck  with  black 
blasting  powder.  Mr.  McCarthy,  on 
cross-examination,  tried  to  minimize 
the  damage  that  would  have  resulted 
had  the  explosion  occurred.  The  wit- 
ness insisted  there  would  have  been 
nothing  left  of  the  house. 

Eugene  Detty,  a young  man  employed 
by  Morrell  Bros.,  gardeners,  of  Green 
Ridge,  told  that  he  was  going  on  a visit 
to  relatives  in  Justus,  on  the  night 
of  Sept.  20,  and  upon  alighting  from  a 
car  in  Priceburg,  had  gone  but  a short 
distance  up  the  road,  when  fifteen  for- 
eigners pounced  upon  him  from  am- 
bush and  despite  his  protests  that  their 
accusation  that  he  was  a “scab”  were 
untrue,  beat  him  unmercifully.  He  was 
laid  up  for  three  months.  The  witness 
insisted  that  he  never  worked  in  the 
mines  and  did  not  intend  to. 

George  Meyle,  an  engineer  at  Oly- 
phant No.  2 colliery  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company,  told  that  one  day 
on  his  way  to  work,  during  the  strike, 
he  encountered  a crowd  of  fifty  or  sev- 
enty-five strikers,  led  by  Stephen  Reap. 
Reap  asked  him  to  turn  back.  The 
crowd  gathered  about  him,  and  its 
manner  was  such  that  he  decided  to 
grant  Mr.  Reap’s  request. 

William  Whitbeck,  who  was  doing 
some  haying  on  a Delaware  and  Hud- 
son farm  at  Olyphant,  told  of  being 
frequently  molested,  and  that  once  a 
crowd  of  strikers  threatened  to  throw 
him  into  the  river. 

Thomas  Kennedy,  a 15-year-old  boy 
from  Carbondale,  told  the  story  of  a 
committee  of  mine  workers  attempting 
to  have  him  discharged  from  Kelly’s 
drug  store,  because  his  father,  William 
Kennedy,  was  working  as  an  engineer 
at  a Delaware  and  Hudson  mine.  Pro- 
prietor Kelly  was  traveling  through 
the  west,  and  the  head  clerk,  Thomas 
Shannon,  told  the  committee  he  had  no 
power  to  discharge  the  boy.  The  com- 
mittee came  around  the  next  day  and 
repeated  its  demand,  adding  that  if  the 
boy  was  not  discharged  in  three. days 
they  would  place  a boycott  on  the  store. 

The  clerk  sent  for  the  boy’s  father, 
and  after  talking  the  thing  over  it  was 
decided  that  the  boy  should  lay  off  to 
save  the  absent  proprietor  from  the 
boycott. 

School  Children  Struck. 

William  Kennedy,  the  boy’s  father, 
corroborated  this  story,  and,  told,  fur- 
ther, that  the  pupils  at  the  public 
school  which  his  two  youngest  children 
were  attending,  went  on  strike  because 
of  their  aversion  to  associating  with 
the  children  of  a "scab.”  He  withdrew 
his  children  from  the  school  and  sent 


106 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


them  to  St.  Rose  academy,  conducted 
by  Catholic  nuns. 

White-haired  Captain  Joseph  H.  Dug- 
gan, of  West  Market  street,  Scranton, 
who  continued  at  work  in  his  position 
as  engineer  at  the  Leggett’s  Creek  col- 
liery of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  com- 
pany, broke  down  and  cried  as  he  re- 
lated on  the  stand,  how  the  Father 
Whitty  Total  Abstinence  society,  of 
which  he  was  a member  for  twenty- 
seven  years,  demanded  his  resignation 
because  he  would  not  give  up  his  job. 
He  was  drillmaster  of  the  society  for 
many  years,  and  his  whole  heart  was 
wrapped  up  in  it. 

He  also  told  of  being  frequently 
hooted,  jeered  and  stoned  by  strikers 
as  he  was  on  his  way  to  and  from 
work,  and  that  a committee  of  the  Uni- 
ted Mine  Workers  ordered  his  grocer, 
M.  J.  Clarke,  to  refuse  to  sell  him 
goods. 

David  E.  Lewis,  foreman  at  the 
Grassy  Island  colliery  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company  at  Olyphant,  tes- 
tified that  he  was  turned  back  from 
work  one  day  by  a crowd  of  300  strikers, 
led  by  District  Board  Member  Stephen 
Reap.  Olyphant  was  very  disorderly 
during  the  strike,  he  declared.  One 
Sunday  morning  seven  effigies 
were  suspended  from  telegraph 
poles  in  the  very  heart  of 
the  town.  He  knew  the  mur- 
dered James  Winston  very  well  and 
declared  he  was  a highly,  respected, 
quiet,  inoffensive  man. 

John  Lowandofski,  who  worked  at 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern company’s  Dodge  colliery  during 
the  strike,  found  a dynamite  cartridge, 
with  cap  and  fuse  attached,  lying  in 
front  of  his  door  one  night.  He  heard 
men  running  away,  and  going  out  on 
the  porch  found  the  bomb.  The  fuse 
was  lighted.  He  cut  the  fuse  with  a 
knife  and  prevented  an  explosion. 

Exhibited  the  Dynamite. 

Special  Officer  Lewis  exhibited  to  the 
commission  one  of  the  five  sticks  of 
dynamite  which  composed  the  bomb. 
He  had  it  enclosed  in  an  old  stocking, 
carefully  packed  in  wet  cloths.  It  had 
been  previously  frozen  to  lessen  the 
danger  of  a sudden  and  tragic  ad- 
journment of  the  hearings.  The  wit- 
ness did  not  contribute  much  to  the 
ease  of  those  sitting  about  the  witness 
box  by  his  statements  of  the  destruct- 
ive powers  of  the  bomb.  It  would  blow 
a house  to  pieces,  he 'declared. 

Mary  Kultz,  of  Weston,  near  Der- 
ringer, in  lower  Luzerne  county,  gave 
testimony  through  Deputy  Clerk  of  the 
Courts  Charles  Mirtz,  acting  as  inter- 
preter. 

A crowd  surrounded  her  house  one 
evening,  when  her  husband  returned 
from  work  in  the  mines,  and  stoned  it 
for  six  hours.  Every  window  was 
broken  and  many  things  inside  the 
house  were  smashed  by  the  big  stones 
which  passed  through  the  windows. 
She  and  her  child  sought  shelter  in  the 
garret  during  the  bombardments.  The 


crowd  dared  the  husband  to  come  out, 
threatening  to  hang  him  to  a tree.  The 
next  day  they  moved  to  Drifton,  on 
receiving  a letter  threatening  that  if 
they  did  not  leave  the  place  in  two 
days  their  house  would  be  burned 
down.  They  owned  their  own  home, 
but  now  are  paying  rent  in  Drifton. 
Mrs.  Kultz  declared  she  would  never 
go  back  to  live  in  it,  because  of  fear. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  McCarthy 
brought  out  the  fact  that  Mrs.  Kultz 
had  had  William  H.  Dettery,  a district 
board  member  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  arrested  for  leading  the  at- 
tack, and  that  at  the  hearing  he  was 
acquitted  and  she  was  held  for  false 
swearing.  Mrs.  Kultz  reiterated  that 
she  was  still  satisfied  that  it  was  Det- 
tery who  led  the  mob. 

Her  husband  followed  on  the  stand 
and  corroborated  the  story  of  the  at- 
tack. Photographs  of  the  house  “be- 
fore” and  “after”  the  bombardment 
were  shown  the  commission.  It  was 
testified  that  the  house  cost  $l,00u. 
From  the  “after”  pictures,  the  house 
would  not  bring  much  more  than  thirty 
cents  at  a forced  sale  the  morning  fol- 
lowing the  bombardment. 

The  Damage  Done. 

E.  A.  Oberander,  private  secretary 
for  Alexander  Coxe,  who  had  the  pho- 
tographs taken,  gave  an  account  of  the 
damage  done.  Stones  weighing  thirty 
pounds  were  hurled  through  the  doors 
and  windows,  and  against  the  side  of 
the  house.  The  stove  was  broken  and 
the  furniture,  in  general,  demolished. 
Frank  Fidati  testified  that  he 
was  sent  to  Winton  by  J.  L.  Crawford, 
president  of  the  People’s  Coal  com- 
pany, to  watch  the  house  of  Dominick 
Bertaki,  one  of  the  employes  at  the 
Oxford  colliery.  Four  men,  two  of  them 
officers  of  the  United  Mine  Workers’ 
local,  waited  on  him  and  warned  him 
that  if  he  did  not  quit  protecting  Ber- 
taki’s  house,  he  would  be  hurt.  The 
next  night  two  men  shot  at  him  with 
revolvers  ten  times.  One  of  the  bullets 
struck  him  in  the  leg.  He  had  to  go 
to  the  hospital. 

Dominick  Bertaki,  the  owner  of  the 
house,  testified  that  the  next  morning, 
in  company  with  a squad  of  soldiers 
from  Camp  Wyckoff,  he  went  to  his 
home  and  found  a dynamite  bomb  in 
the  yard.  The  fuse  had  been  lighted, 
but  went  out.  John  Musgozzi,  a union 
man,  told  his  wife,  and  she  told  him 
afterwards,  that  the  union  had  passed 
a resolution  to  blow  up  his  house.  This 
testimony  was  not  allowed  to  go  on 
the  record,  as  it  was  hearsay. 

Mr.  O’Brien  asked  District  President 
T.  D.  Nicholls  to  stand  up.  Mr.  Nich- 
olls  complied.  Mr.  O’Brien  then  had 
the  witness  say  he  knew  Mr.  Nicholls 
and  had  received  a "letter  of  recom- 
mendation” from  him. 

A photographic  copy  of  a letter  was 
shown  District  President  Nicholls  and 
he  admitted  it  was  a copy  of  a letter 
he  had  written.  Thus,  incidentally,  was 
Mr.  Nicholls  for  the  first  time  heard 


to  make  an  utterance  before  the  com- 
mission. The  witness  also  identified  the 
letter,  and  then  Mr.  O’Brien  read  it, 
with  appropriate  emphasis.  It  follows: 

Office  of  the  United  Mine  Workers. 

District  No.  1. 

Officers  and  Members  of  the  U.  M.  W.  of 

A.,  Jessup: 

Dear  Sirs  and  Brothers:  The  bearer. 

Dominick  Bertaki.  has  decided  to  quit 
work  at  the  People’s  Coal  company,  Ox- 
ford colliery,  and  become  a good  union 
man.  I advise  and  trust  that  you  will 
treat  him  in  a friendly  manner  as  long 
as  he  behaves  himself  accordingly. 

Yours  truly, 

T.  D.  Nichols. 

Seal  of  District  No.  1. 

Hearty  laughter  followed  the  reading 
of  the  last  part  of  the  letter. 

Wanted  Them  Discharged. 

James  Conlon,  a mine  foreman  for  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company  at 
Plains,  and  president  of  the  Plains 
township  school  board  testified  that  in 
June  a committee  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  demanded  the  discharge,  or 
more  exactly  protested  against  the  re- 
employment of  Miss  McKay,  Miss  Win- 
terstein  and  Charles  Brandt,  each  of 
whom  had  a relative  working  in  or 
about  the  mines.  The  committee  ap- 
peared openly  at  the  meeting  at  which 
the  teachers  were  being  c-hosen  for  the 
ensuing  year  and  put  forward  their  de- 
mand. There  was  no  question  as  to 
their  competency  or  qualifications,  the 
miners  said. 

Mr.  Darrow  sought  to  excuse  the 
committee’s  conduct  on  the  ground  that 
they  were  acting,  not  with  any  animus 
towards  these  school  teachers,  but  for 
the  general  good  of  the  schools,  it  being 
disadvantageous  to  have  the  teachers 
disliked  by  the  pupils. 

“Isn’t  it  advantageous  that  the  teach- 
ers are  liked  by  the  pupils?”  Mr.  Dar- 
row' asked. 

“Yes,”  the  witness  answered,  “and 
these  teachers  were  the  best  liked  of 
any  in  the  schools.” 

President  Mitchell  whispered  some- 
thing tc  Mr.  Darrow  and  the  latter  pro- 
ceeded to  ask  questions  with  a view  of 
emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  commit- 
tee did  not  ask  the  board  to  discharge 
the  teachers,  but  to  not  re-employ 
them. 

Frank  McCarthy  was  principal  of  the 
Miners’  Mills  schools  for  six  years,  told 
of  being  refused  re-employment  by  the 
school  board  last  August.  He  alleged 
it  was  because  his  brother  is  a mine 
foreman.  One  of  the  directors  told  him 
it  was  because  he  had  voted  wrong  for 
the  office  of  ’squire  at  the  spring  elec- 
tion. His  father's  and  brother’s  names 
were  printed  on  a banner  containing  a 
list  of  "scabs”  and  admonitions  to  the 
people  to  not  send  their  children  to 
school  to  relatives  of  "scabs." 

Miss  Barrett,  who  taught  for  seven 
years  and  whose  brother  continued  to 
work  in  the  mines  was  the  only  other 
teacher  not  re-employed.  She  is  now 
working  as  a clerk  in  a dry  goods  store 
in  another  city. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


107 


The  banner  aboye  described  was  ex- 
hibited by  Daniel  Powell,  of  Miners’ 
Mills,  who  took  it  down  from  where  it 
was  suspended  above  the  road  where 
Plains  and  Miners’  Mills  meet.  Attor- 
neys Darrow,  Warren,  Lenahan  and 
Wolverton  held  the  banner  outctretched 
that  the  commissioners  might  read  it. 
It  was  twelve  feet  long  and  five  feet 
wide. 

Christ  McDermott,  of  Pittston,  a fire 
boss  for  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  - com- 
pany, had  to  have  police  guard  over  his 
house  every  night  for  a week;  that 
Murphy  & Joyce,  storekeepers,  refused 
to  sell  him  goods,  and  that  the  woman 
who  sold  him  milk  cut  him  o°f  because 
she  received  an  anonymous  letter  noti- 
fying her  that  if  she  didn’t  stop  selling 
him  milk  she  would  find  her  cow  miss- 
ing some  morning.  The  ice  man  and 
a huckster  also  refused  to  deal  with 
him. 

W.  R.  Gardner,  a weighmaster  for  the 
Pennsylvania  company  told  of  frequent 
and  serious  annoyances  to  which  he  was 
subjected  during  the  strike,  because  he 
would  not  give  up  his  job.  He  was 
held  up  by  mobs,  stoned,  threatened, 
boycotted  and  hung  in  effigy.  Daniel 
Davis,  a butcher,  refused  to  sell  him 
meat. 

The  witness  said  he  never  belonged  to 
a labor  union  since  the  time  the  union 
elected  a full  county  ticket  in  Luzerne. 
He  was  sorry  he  ever  voted  the  ticket. 
The  sheriff,  he  said,  was  a defaulter. 

David  Dick,  of  Old  Forge,  who  refus- 
ed to  quit  work  for  the  Pennsylvania 
Coal  company,  testified  that  one  night 
he  was  sitting  on  his  porch  when  he 
was  fired  at  five  times  from  ambush. 
One  bullet  went  through  his  hat.  He 
had  previously  been  threatened  by 
strikers. 

Crippled  Engineer. 

Joseph  Webb,  an  old  and  crippled 
fan-engineer,  testified  to  having  been 
beaten,  knocked  down  and  cut  on  the 
hand  by  a mob  of  fifty,  armed  with  re- 
volvers, knives,  clubs,  whips  and  cat- 
o'-nine  tails.  He  did  not  go  to  work 
after  this. 

William  Booz,  of  Pittston,  refused 'to 


quit  his  job  as  blacksmith  for  the 
Pennsylvania  company.  He  was 
threatened  several  times  by  strikers. 
At  3 o’clock  one  morning  the  house  of 
his  father-in-law,  in  which  he,  the 
witness  lived,  was  dynamited.  He 
judged  that  a stick  of  dynamite  was 
hung  on  the  door  knob.  The  door  was 
splintered,  windows  smashed,  and  fur- 
niture, dishes,  pictures  and  the  like 
wrecked. 

Mike  Endres,  of  Plains,  was  stoned 
and  called  vile  names.  William  Mokes, 
of  Port  Blanchard,  was  mobbed  and  his 
house  attacked  by  a crowd  of  twenty- 
one  men.  Charles  Cuttle,  of  Avoca, 
had  the  usual  experiences. 

James  Mitchell,  who  was  a miner  be- 
fore the  strike,  and  who  worked  as  a 
blacksmith’s  helper  and  track  repairer 
after  the  strike  commenced,  told  of 
being  put  out  of  the  Browntown  (Pitts- 
ton) branch  of  the  Ancient  Order  of 
Hibernians.  The  vote  was  unanimous. 

Appended  is  a summary  of  the  sta- 
tistics of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  com- 
pany filed  with  the  commission  yester- 
day, by  Major  Warren; 

The  statements  submitted  to  the  com- 
mission by  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  com- 
pany show,  in  detail,  the  number  of  col- 
lieries, the  production,  the  shipments,  the 
dockage,  the  earnings  of  the  contract 
miners  and  all  other  classes  of  labor,  the 
time  worked  by  breakers  and  employes, 
the  time  lost  from  various  causes,  the 
character  of  the  veins  worked  and  in  gen- 
eral everything  of  the  actual  conditions 
of  production  of  coal  which  it  has  been 
possible  for  the  company  to  accurately 
show  for  the  year  April  1,  1901,  to  March 
31.  1902.  Following  are  the  principal  facts: 

Total  number  of  breakers 10 

Total  number  miners’  tons  pro- 
duced   1,943,210 

Total  tons  prepared  coal  pro- 
duced   1,440,802 

Total  tons  pea  coal  produced 326,180 

Total  tons  of  prepared  and  pea 

coal  produced  1,763, 9S2 

Average  number  of  pounds  of  pre- 
pared coal  produced  per  miners' 

ton  1,631 

Average  number  of  pounds  of  pre- 
pared and  pea  coal  produced  per 

miners'  ton  2,037 

Percentage  of  dockage  1 03 


MINERS. 

The  total  number  of  contract 

miners  was  1,828 

The  average  annual  earnings  per 
contract  was  $1,267.19 

(On  account  of  the  uncertainty  of  the 
best  information  which  it  has  been  pos- 
sible to  obtain  as  to  the  number  of  miners 
or  laborers  in  each  contract,  the  average 
earnings  of  each  mirier  or  laborer  has  not 
been  stated). 

The  accuracy  of  the  statements  refer- 
ring to  earnings  of  contract  miners  has 
been  certified  to  by  James  Markwick, 
chartered  accountant,  representing  the 
miners. 

COMPANY  MEN. 

Av  age  Av’age 
rate  earning:, 
per  day.  per  year 


Enineers,  machinists,  car- 
penters, blacksmiths, 

etc  $2.12  $621.93 

Firemen,  pumpmen,  sta- 
blemen, trackmen,  tim- 

bermen,  etc  1.80  550.48 

Dumpers,  footmen,  head- 
men, runners,  loaders, 

etc  1.56  334.87 

Drivers,  plate  or  gate- 

men,  watchmen,  etc 1.39  345.66 

Door  boys,  slate  pickers 90  149. SI 

Laborers  and  various 

other  classes  1.63  353.29 

Average  earnings  per  year  of  men 

and  boys  $312.19 

Average  breaker  starts  232.1 

Average  hours  worked  per  day,  based 

on  total  starts  6.8 

Number  of  suspensions  due  to  action 

of  employes  533 

Number  of  suspensions  due  to  ma- 
chinery   116 

Number  of  suspensions  due  to  mines 

being  flooded  28 

Statement  concerning  the  houses  owned 
by  the  company,  as  follows: 

Number  of  company  houses 28 

Average  rental  per  month  $6,607 

Average  number  of  rooms  7.25 


The  statements  also  show  uncollected 
rent  amounting  to  $2,315.65  as  due  from 
employes  November  1,  the  annual  rental 
of  the  property  being  $4,130. 

They  also  show  the  name  and  number 
of  employes  who  are  owners  of  real  es- 
tate, total  number  being  989,  or  over  21. S 
per  cent  of  the  aggregate. 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Dec.  20. 


[From  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  Dec  22.] 


Thj  mine  stride  commission  adjourned 
Saturday  morning  at  11.45  o’clock  over 
the  holidays.  Before  adjourning  Satur- 
day morning,  Judge  Gray  made  anoth- 
er urgent  request  thatthe  companies 
present  their  statistics  at  once.  He 
said  he  wanted  t oimpress  on  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  companies,  the  urg- 
ency of  their  statistics  being  filed  at 
once.  He  trusted  they  would  all  be  put 
in  during  the  early  part  of  the  recess  so 
that  those  who  have  in  hand  their  ex- 
amination may  ascertain  whether  or 
not  they  are  satisfactory,  and  in  whaJt, 
if  any,  feature  they  should  be  amended 
or  supplemented. 


There  Was  Time  Enough. 

“With  all  due  deference,’’  the  judge 
remarked  in  meaningful  tones,  “there 
has  been  time  enough  for  all  these  stat- 
istics to  be  presented.  Unless  there  is 
better  co-operation  this  hearing  will 
drag  itself  out  interminably.  We  want 
■to  get  at  the  earnings  of  the  miners. 
The  only  way  we  can  get  at  them  is 
through  the  books  of  the  companies. 
We  trust  these  figures  will  be  forth- 
coming without  further  delay.” 

In  announcing  the  adjournment  Judge 
Gray,  in  the  name  of  the  commission, 
wished  all  the  parties  a happy  Christ- 
mas, and  expressed  the  hope  that  all 
would  bear  in  their  minds  the  message 


of  the  season,  “Peace  on  earth;  good 
will  to  men,”  and  return  to  the  hear- 
ings imbued  with  this  spirit. 

The  commissioners  are  well  pleased 
with  their  stay  in  Scranton  and  felic- 
itated themselves  on  the  fact  that  this 
city  was  selected  for  the  sessions.  One 
of  them  said  to  a Tribune  rpeorter  as 
he  was  leaving  for  his  train  that  they 
could  not  have  asked  for  more  delight- 
ful environments.  The  people  could 
not  do  tob  much  for  them,  he  said,  in 
the  way  of  hospitable  treatment,  the 
lawyers  and  others  participating  in  the 
hearings,  and  the  newspapers  in  deal- 
ing with  the  commission  and  its  work 
were  one  and  all  most  courteous  and 


108 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


considerate.  “If  our  experiences  con- 
tinue to  the  end  as  it  has  in  Scranton,” 
said  the  commissioner,  “we  will  have 
nothing  unpleasant  to  look  back  to.” 
One  Adverse  Criticism. 

Only  one  utterance  of  adverse  criti- 
cism of  the  commission  has  as  yet  been 
heard.  A New  York  paper,  which  is 
seeking  self-advertisement  by  institut- 
ing a legal  fight  against  the  alleged  coal 
trust,  took  exception  to  the  action  of 
the  commissioners  in  refusing  to  go  into 
this  question.  It  was  a great  disap- 
pointment to  the  paper  in  question  not 
to  be  able  to  print  in  glaring  headlines 
“Mine  Strike  Commission  Joins  Hands 

with  the  in  Exposing  the  Coal 

Trust.”  The  existence  or  non-existence 
of  a coal  trust,  the  commissioners  be- 
lieve, has  nothing  directly  to  do  with 
the  questions  at  issue  before  them,  and 
it  is  a matter  of  great  doubt  if  it  can 
have  the  slightest  indirect  bearing.  The 
commission  has  declared  it  will  assume 
the  operators  are  able  to  pay  better 
wages.  This  the  miners  have  asserted 
is  all  they  can  ask,  unless  the  operators 
allege  they  are  not  able  to  pay  better 
wages.  If  the  operators  make  such  a 
contention,  the  commission  says,  it  will 
take  up  the  matter  of  going  into  the 
excluded  question. 

The  commission  has  won  the  confi- 
dence of  the  whole  people  and  as  this  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  permanent 
effectiveness  of  its  work,  it  is  regretted 
by  the  thinking  men  of  all  parties  im- 
mediately concerned,  and  by  the  party 
most  concerned,  the  people  of  the  an- 
thracite region,  that  anything  should 
occur  tending  to  diminish  this  confi- 
dence. 

The  closing  session,  Saturday,  was 
not  marked  by  any  especially  important 
feature.  Non-unionists’  witnesses  told 
stories  similar  to  those  related  during 
the  preceding  three  days,  showing  how 
they  had  been  maltreated  because  of 
their  refusal  to  join  the  strikers,  and 
incidntally  showing  the  extent  of  the 
strike  violence. 

The  miners  were  permitted  to  inter- 
rupt the  non-unionists’ ■ case,  to  rebut 
the  story  tearfully  told  the  preceding 
day  by  Joseph  H.  Duggan,  to  the  effect 
that  he  had  been  expelled  from  the 
Father  Whitty  Total  Abstinence  society 
because  he  worked  during  the  strike. 
Patrick  J.  Mulherin,  president  of  the 
society,  declared  the  story  to  be  false; 
that  Mr.  Duggan  was  expelled  for  vio- 
lation of  his  total  abstinence  pledge, 
and  incidentally  that  Mr.  Duggan  was 
known  to  be  able  to  shed  tears  very 
readily.  Attorney  O'Brien  contented 
himself  by  showing  that  the  society's 
minute  book,  regarding  the  action  in  the 
Duggan  case,  was  not  put  in  evidence. 

Held  Up  by  Mob. 

David  E.  Lewis,  foreman  jt  the  Gras- 
sy Island  colliery  of  the  Delaware  and 
Hudson  company  at  Olyphant  testified 
to  having  been  held  up  by  a mob  of 
two  hundred  at  Tinsley’s  crossing  and 
prevented  him  going  to  work.  A news- 
paper correspondent  happened  along  at 


the  time  Mr.  Lewis  was  being  mobbed 
and  took  a picture  of  the  scene.  Copies 
of  the  photograph  were  shown  the  com- 
mission, after  Mr.  Lewis  admitted  their 
accuracy,  and  the  commission  engaged 
a hearty  laugh.  Foreman  Lewis  is 
shown  in  the  photo  sitting  calmly  on  a 
mound  of  earth  posing  for  the  picture, 
while  the  “mob” — about  150  persons — 
are  grouped  around  in  poses  even  more 
studied  than  that  of  the  foreman.  Ev- 
erybody including  the  victim  of  the 
mob,  "looked  pleasant.” 

Judge  Gray  jokingly  asked  if  the 
crowd  “resumed  operations”  after  the 
picture  had  been  taken.  Mr.  Lewis  re- 
plied in  the  affirmative.  They  gathered 
around  him,  jostled  and  threatened  and 
compelled  him  to  turn  back. 

Dr.  L.  L.  Sprague,  principal  of  Wy- 
oming seminary  at  Kingston,  gave  tes- 
timony to  show  that  union  men  pre- 
vented teamsters  from  hauling  coal 
mined  and  ordered  before  the  strike. 
He  went  to  the  headquarters  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  at  Edwardsville 
to  see  if  he  could  not  prevent  the  team- 
sters from  being  molested.  The  man  in 
charge  of  the  headquarters  called  up 
President  Mitchell  at  Wilkes-Barre  and 
laid  the  case  before  him.  Mr.  Mitchell 
decreed  that  if  the  Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  company  would 
haul  the  coal  from  the  mine  to  the 
Kingston  station,  the  teamsters  might 
take  it  from  there  to  the  school. 

John  H.  Otto  worked  at  Archbald 
for  the  D.  & H.  company  during  the 
strike.  He  had  great  difficulty  in  se- 
curing provisions.  The  merchants  told 
him  they  had  been  threatened  with 
boycotting  if  they  sold  him  goods. 

Why  He  Quit. 

Thomas  Clarke,  a fifteen  year  old 
boy,  whose  father  worked  during  the 
strike  testified  that  he  heard  a commit- 
tee had  gone  to  his  employer  to  have 
him  discharged,  and  that  he  quit  sooner 
than  get  his  employer  in  trouble. 

William  Allen,  of  Peckville,  division 
superintendent  of  the  Elk  Hill  Coal  and 
Iron  company  told  of  the  disorder  at 
Throop  and  Eynon.  At  the  former 
place  there  was  an  attack  on  the 
pump  house  on  the  night  of  August 
11.  Shots  were  exchanged  between  the 
assailants  on  one  side  of  the  river 
and  the  four  men  guarding  the  pump 
house  on  the  opposite  bank  and  when 
the  battle  was  over  fourteen  bullets 
were  found  imbedded  in  the  side  of  the 
pump  house  facing  the  river.  At  Ey- 
non, a mob  attacked  and  wrecked  the 
carpenter  shop  which  was  being  used 
as  living  quarters  for  the  non-union 
men,  and  then  pulled  the  fires  in  the 
boiler  room,  where  steam  was  generat- 
ed for  the  Raymond  washery  and  the 
colliery  pump. 

L.  B.  Thompson,  who  worked  at  the 
Raymond  corroborated  Superintendent 
Allen’s  story  and  told,  further,  that  the 
non-union  men  were  driven  out  with 
guns.  John  Siegel  also  told  of  this  af- 
fair. 


Mrs.  Rose  Snyder,  of  Wilkes-Barre, 
whose  husband  worked  during  the 
strike,  testified  that  one  night  the 
house  was  entered  and  robbed  and  a 
few  nights  later  it  was  set  afire  and 
burned  to  the  ground.  She  was  corro- 
borated by  her  husband’s  parents,  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  John  Snyder. 

Anthony  Roguski,  a Wilkes-Barre 
non-unionist,  was  assaulted  by  a mob 
and  laid  up  with  injuries  for  six  weeks. 
Joseph  Tomashumas,  of  Hazleton,  was 
assaulted,  his  house  was  stoned  and 
grocers  refused  to  sell  him  goods. 

Dragged  Her  Out. 

Mrs.  Ongowsky  and  her  little  boy, 
twelve  years  old,  who  lived  in  Kings- 
ton, told  that  while  her  husband  was 
at  work  a crowd  of  strikers  forced 
their  way  into  her  house,  dragged  her 
and  her  boy  into  the  street,  brutally' 
beat  them  and  threw  their  household 
goods  into  the  street.  They  got  an- 
other house  in  another  part  of  the 
town,  but  were  there  only  two  days 
when  the  landlord  ordered  them  out. 
When  they  were  moving,  their  goods 
were  tossed  about  and  broken  by  a 
mob.  The  Wilkes-Barre  board  of 
charities  took  care  of  her  and  the 
children  until  they  could  get  a house 
in  Wilkes-Barre.  The  woman’s  story 
of  how  the  mob  beat  her  in  the  pres- 
ence of  her  frantic  little  children  was 
truly  pitiful. 

The  last  witness  to  be  heard  hei  e 
was  Herbert  Dolan,  of  Parsons.  He 
worked  as  an  engineer  for  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  during  the  strike. 
Henry  Jenkins,  a member  of  the  U. 
M.  W.,  told  him  he  was  a marked 
man  and  would  be  killed.  James 
Moran,  president  of  the  Parsons  local 
told  him  if  he  did  not  quit  work,  no 
union  man  would  work  with  him  after 
the  strike.  Another  union  man  told 
him  his  house  would  be  blown  up. 
June  3 his  house  was  attacked  by  stone 
throwers,  and  the  windows  smashed. 
His  children  were  frequently  insulted 
and  beaten.  Reese  & Co.,  with  whom 
he  had  traded  for  a number  of  years, 
told  him  they  had  been  notified  by  the 
union  not  to  sell  him  goods  and  that 
while  they  did  not  want  to  refuse  him 
they'  would  have  to  insist  on  his  coming- 
in  the  back  way  when  he  wanted  any- 
thing, or  else  send  the  children.  He  de- 
clined to  trade  under  these  conditions. 

An  interesting  incident,  indicative 
of  the  fact  that  some  of  the  sad  tales 
byr  miners’  witnesses  made  a deep  im- 
pression on  the  commissioners,  was  un- 
covered accidentally  on  Saturday.  Be- 
fore leaving  for  his  home  Saturday, 
Judge  Gray'  made  up  a big  Christmas 
box  and  sent  it  away'  by  express.  Tt 
was  found  to  be  addressed  to  Andrew 
Chippie,  of  Jeddo.  This  is  the  little 
Hungarian  boy  who  testified  that  his 
earnings  of  4 cents  an  hour  are  being 
kept  by  the  company  to  pay  a debt  of 
$S0  for  rent  and  coal  contracted  by'  his 
father,  now  deceased. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


109 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Jan.  6. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  7.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  6.— The  anthracite 
mine  strike  commission  resumed  its 
sessions,  after  the  Christmas  recess, 
in  the  circuit  court  room  of  the  fed- 
eral building,  here,  this  morning  at  11 
o’clock,  and  spent  the  day  listening  to 
further  tales  of  the  woes  of  non-union 
men  during  the  strike. 

The  court  room  is  only  a little  larger 
than  the  superior  court  room  in  the 
Lackawanna  court  house,  where  the 
Scranton  sessions  were  held,  and  which 
was  crowded  to  suffocation  at  every 
session,  but  at  the  opening  session  here, 
there  was  plenty  of  room  in  the  spec- 
tators’ benches,  and  probably  not  more 
than  fifty  persons  were  present  who 
were  not  interested  as  parties,  attor- 
neys or  witnesses.  At  the  afternoon 
session  the  seats  were  all  taken  and  a 
few  could  not  gain  admittance. 

There  was  a large  crowd,  however,  in 
front  of  the  building  at  the  close  of 
the  morning  session  when  the  attend- 
ants were  coming  out.  The  crowd  was 
there  for  one  purpose  only — to  see 
Mitchell.  Newspaper  photographers 
lined  up  on  the  sidewalk  with  their 
cameras  focused  on  the  doorway  to 
“snap”  the  miners’  leader.  Persons  on 
their  way  to  dinner  gathered  about  the 
photographers,  leaving  an  open  space 
in  front.  Judge  Gray,  Bishop  Spald- 
ing, Wayne  Mac  Veagh  and  other  na- 
tional celebrities  came  out,  but  the 
cameras  were  idle  and  the  crowd  un- 
interested. 

Mitchell  appeared  all  unconscious  and 
slipped  into  the  clear  space.  “Click, 
click,  click”  went  the  camera  shutters 
and  the  crowd  surged  forward.  Mitch- 
ell and  a friend  walked  on  and  crossed 
the  street  to  his  hotel.  The  crowd  fol- 
lowed and  surged  into  the  hotel  cor- 
ridor. No  one  could  tell  from  Mitch- 
ell’s face  that  he  felt  there  was  as 
much  as  an  eye  upon  him.  It  was  not 
until  he  took  the  elevator  for  his  room 
that  the  crowd  left  the  corridor. 

The  arrangement  of  the  court  room 
here  is  substantially  similar  to  what  it 
was  in  Scranton.  The  tables  for  the 
respective  parties  were  placed  in  posi- 
tions corresponding  to  those  obtain- 
ing- in  Scranton,  and  the  same  men  oc- 
cupied relatively  the  same  places  at 
the  tables.  Instead  of  having  the  jury 
box  fitted  up  as  a press  gallery,  as  in 
Scranton,  it  was  removed  from  the 
court  room  here,  and  two  large  tables 
substituted.  About  thirty  newspaper 
representatives  are  attending  the  hear- 
ings. Few  of  the  New  York  papers  are 
represented  by  special  correspondents. 

An  Interesting  Feature. 

The  most  interesting  feature  of  the 
day  was  the  cross-examination  of  Sher- 
iff Charles  H.  Schadt,  of  Lackawanna 
county,  by  President  Mitchell,  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers.  The  generally- 
known  fact  that  they  are  close  friends 
made  the  examination  the  more  inter- 


esting. Not  a few  of  Mr.  Mitchell’s 
questions  bore  on  incidents  that  came 
to  his  knowledge  from  personal  associ- 
ation with  the  sheriff. 

Judge  Gray’s  criticism  of  a Plymouth 
’squire  who  refused  to  issue  a warrant 
for  men  who  assailed  a non-union  man, 
and  a declaration  by  a non-union  wit- 
ness that  he  had  been  threatened  with 
death  if  he  came  here  to  testify  before 
the  commission  were  provocative  of 
close  interest  from  the  listeners. 

The  attorneys  present  besides  those 
mentioned  in  yesterday’s  despatch  are: 
Hon.  Wayne  Mac  Veagh,  of  the  Erie; 
John  B.  Kerr,  general  counsel  of  the 
Ontario  and  Western;  W.  W.  Ross, 
general  counsel,  and  Devid  Reese, 
Scranton  attorney  for  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western,  and  Samuel 
Dickson,  of  Philadelphia,  of  counsel 
for  the  independent  operators  of  the 
Hazleton  region. 

President  J.  L.  Crawford,  of  the 
People’s  Coal  company;  General  Su- 
perintendent C.  C.  Rose,  of  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company,  and  Gen- 
eral Manager  May,  of  the  Erie’s  coal 
properties,  are  among  the  Scrantonians 
present. 

The  members  of  the  executive  board 
of  District  No.  1,  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America,  arrived  tonight.  Dis- 
trict President  Nichol's  and  District 
Secretary  Dempsey  will  come  tomor- 
row. 

Prior  to  this  morning’s  session,  the 
commission  had  a conference  and  it 
was  expected  some  announcement 
would  come  from  Judge  Gray,  at  the 
opening  of  the  session,  but  no  an- 
nouncement was  forthcoming.  The 
resumption  was  wholly  without  inci- 
dent. 


THE  MORNING  SESSION. 


No  Formality  Attends  the  Resump- 
tion of  the  Hearings. 

No  formality  whatever  attended  the 
resumption  of  the  hearings.  Judge 
Gray  simply  said  in  opening  the  ses- 
sion: “We  will  start  in  where  we  left 

off,”  and  Attorney  John  T.  Lenahan 
forthwith  resumed  the  presentation  of 
the  non-union  men’s  case. 

John  J.  Williams  was  the  first  witness 
called.  He  lives  at  Wilkes-Barre,  and 
is  a mining  engineer  at  the  Stanton 
colliery.  In  answer  to  questions  by 
Mr.  Lenahan,  the  witness  told  that  on 
June  26,  while  going  home  from  work, 
he  encountered  a mob  led  by  an  Hun- 
garian wielding  a club.  The  leader 
called  him  “scab”  and  struck  him  with 
the  club.  The  witness  ran  up  a side 
street  and  encountered  another  mob. 
He  had  to  run  through  a swamp  to 
escape  the  two  bodies  of  assailants. 
He  was  chased  and  overtaken.  Two 
shots  were  fired  at  him,  he  was  hit  in 
the  back  with  a billet  of  wood,  a stone 


struck  him  ori  the  temple,  and  finally 
one  of  the  mob  laid  him  out  senseless- 
in  the  swamp  with  a club.  He  was  left 
lying  where  he  fell.  When  he  recov- 
ered consciousness  he  dragged  himself 
home  and  went  to  bed.  He  was  laid  up 
for  two  weeks. 

On  cross-examination  by  James  L. 
Lenahan,  it  was  brought  out  that  no 
one  has  been  indicted  as  yet  for  the 
assault.  One  man  was  arrested,  but 
the  case  has  not  yet  gone  to  the  grand 
jury. 

Judge  Gray’s  questions  developed  th<- 
fact  that  the  assailants  were  miners, 
adults  and  foreigners. 

The  second  witness  was  Sheriff 
Charles  H.  Schadt,  of  Lackawanna 
county.  Attorney  Joseph  O’Brien  con- 
ducted the  direct  examination.  Sheriff 
Schadt  told  that  the  first  thing  he  did 
in  an  official  way  in  connection  with 
the  strike  was  to  issue  and  post  a proc- 
lamation, calling  for  strict  observance 
of  the  law  and  particularly  warning 
persons  against  interference  with  coal 
company  property  and  employes.  The 
proclamation  was  issued  the  first,  day 
of  the  strike. 

He  also  placed  deputies  about  various 
of  the  mines.  It  was  difficult  to  secure 
deputies  because  of  the  supposed  dan- 
gerous character  of  the  work  and  the 
dislike  prevailing  among  the  men  of 
the  region  to  being  “mixed  up  in  it." 
Most  of  his  time,  the  sheriff  said,  was 
spent  in  answering  calls  for  assistance 
coming  from  different  collieries.  He 
usually  found  a crowd  of  women  and 
children  about,  but  if  there  had  been 
any  trouble  it  was  over  with  before  he 
could  reach  the  place. 

Disorder  at  Throop. 

The  witness  outlined  the  story  of  the 
disorder  at  Throop.  One  night  he  was 
called  to  suppress  rioting  at  the  Pan- 
coast colliery  at  Throop.  The  super- 
intendent showed  him  four  bullet  holes 
in  the  colliery  pump  house  along  the 
river  bank,  which  it  was  alleged  had 
been  fired  from  across  the  river  at  men 
guarding  the  pump.  At  the  witness’ 
suggestion  the  company  placed  electric 
lights  about  the  colliery  and  installed 
a search  light  on  the  top  of  the  break- 
er, which  could  light  up  the  region 
around  the  isolated  pump  house. 

Another  night,  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
same  colliery,  the  sheriff  heard  shots 
in  a patch  of  woods  and  on  making 
an  investigation,  found  a Lithuanian 
with  a shot  gun.  The  stock  was  de  - 
tached  from  the  barrel  and  the  barrel 
was  being  used  as  if  it  was  a walking 
stick.  The  sheriff  arrested  and  dis- 
armed the  man  and  turned  him  over  to 
a deputy.  The  man  later  escaped  from 
the  deputy. 

The  witness  told  that  one  of  his  depu- 
ties, Miles  McAndrew,  was  shot  at 
while  driving  through  Priceburg  in 


110 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


company  with  a mine  superintendent 
early  one  evening-. 

He  then  told  of  the  incidents  leading 
up  to  the  call  for  troops.  There  were 
five  or  six  calls  every  day  from  differ- 
ent places  for  assistance.  It  continued 
to  grow  worse  daily,  and  on  the  day 
he  made  the  call  for  troops  there  were 
no  less  than  ten  different  breaches  of 
the  peace  reported.  The  witness  had 
not  beeen  in  bed  for  three  days;  he 
was  unable  to  get  enough  men  to  act 
as  deputies  to  insure  the  peace  being 
preserved,  and  when  word  came  of  vio- 
lent outbreaks  at  the  Raymond  col- 
liery, Archbald,  and  down  the  valley, 
all  at  the  same  time,  he  decided  to 
make  requisition  for  assistance. 

Further  questioning  by  Mr.  Lenahan 
brought  forth  the  information  that  the 
sheriff  drafted  a second  proclamation 
setting  forth  that  the  disorder  was  in- 
creasing and  that  it  must  cease  or  radi- 
cal steps  would  be  taken  to  prevent 
it.  This  proclamation,  before  being  is- 
sued, was  sent  to  President  Mitchell, 
through  Druggist  John  J.  Loftus,  a 
close  personal  friend  of  both  the  sheriff 
and  Mr.  Mitchell.  The  sheriff  in- 
structed Mr.  Loftus  to  say  to  Mr.  Mit- 
chell that  if  this  second  proclamation 
was  not  effective,  a requisition  would 
be  made  for  troops.  Mr.  Loftus 
brought  back  word  that  Mr.  Mitchell 
would  do  all  in  his  power  to  discourage 
disorder. 

When  Troops  Were  Called. 

At  7 o’clock  on  the  night  the  troops 
were  called,  the  sheriff  gave  the  sec- 
ond proclamation  to  the  newspapers. 
An  hour  later,  the  reports  of  violent 
outbreaks  began  to  pour  in  from  all 
sides.  The  Raymond  colliery  had  been 
attacked  by  a mob  of  200,  another  mob 
was  reported  to  be  forming  at  Oly- 
phant, to  march  on  a Priceburg  col- 
liery, steam  pipes  were  blown  up  by 
dynamite  at  Lackawanna,  and  from 
various  other  parts  of  the  county  came 
telephone  messages  calling  on  the 
sheriff  for  protection.  Feeling  he  w'as 
no  longer  able  to  cope  with  the  situa- 
tion, the  sheriff  telegraphed  the  gov- 
ernor for  assistance. 

The  sheriff  said  he  had  talked  with 
Mr.  Mitchell  twice  about  disorder  and 
was  assured  by  Mr.  Mitchell  that  he 
would  do  everything  he  could  to  as- 
sist in  preserving  the  peace.  The  wit- 
ness personally  knew  of  several  in- 
stances where  Mr.  Mitchell  sent  peace 
committees  to  prevent  or  suppress  dis- 
order. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  if 
President  Mitchell  had  issued  any 
statement,  or  anything  of  that  kind, 
discouraging  violence,  after  the  talks 
which  the  witness  had  with  him.  The 
•witness  said  he  had  not  seen  any. 

President  Mitchell  then  cross-ex- 
amined Sheriff  Schadt,  and  showed  that 
among  his  many  other  accomplish- 
ments he  has  the  makings  of  a good 
lawyer  in  him.  His  questions  were 
direct,  to  the  point  and  neatly  framed. 

Mr.  Mitchell  began  by  eliciting  the 


admission  that  Sheriff  Schadt,  all  dur- 
ing the  progress  of  the  strike,  found 
it  possible  to  periodically  leave  his 
bailiwick,  going  to  Lake  Ariel  on  an 
average  of  twice  a week  and  once  to 
Netv  York.  He  also  brought  it  out 
that  the  sheriff  and  himself  enjoyed  an 
outing  at  Harvey’s  Lake  for  a whole 
day  in  September. 

“Did  you  find  a general  state  of  law- 
lessness existing  in  your  bailiwick  dur- 
ing the  strike?”  asked  Mr.  Mitchell. 

“No,  I can’t  say  that  I did,”  the 
sheriff  t Omitted. 

“It  has  been  testified  that  a reign 
of  terror  existed  throughout  the  whole 
region  during-  the  strike,”  said  Mr. 
Mitchell.  “Was  that  the  case  in  your 
county ?" 

“Sometimes,”  replied  the  witness.  “I 
dare  say  it  existed  in  small  localities 
for  a time.” 

Mr.  Mitchell  further  elicited  an  ad- 
mission from  the  sheriff  that  alone  ar.d 
unaided  he  was  able  to  disperse  the 
crow’ds  he  was  called  upon  to  deal 
with,  and  men,  in  these  crow-ds,  pre- 
sumably strikers,  frequently  volun- 
teered their  services  in  helping  to  dis- 
perse the  crowds. 

Gaffney  Pitched  Quoits. 

Mr.  Mitchell  asked  it  if  was  not  true 
that  Deputy  Sheriff  John  E.  Gaffney, 
who  was  stationed  at  the  William  A. 
colliery,  at  Lackawanna,  pitched  quoits 
and  played  at  Italian  bowling  with  the 
strikers  in  that  locality.  The  sheriff 
admitted  that  he  had  been  informed 
that  Mr.  Gaffney  and  the  strikers  of 
that  place  w'ere  on  very  friendly  terms. 

“Is  it  not  true  that  the  sheriff,  under 
the  laws  of  Pennsylvania,  has  author- 
ity to  compel  citizens  to  act  as  deputy 
sheriffs?”  Mr.  Mitchell  asked. 

“That’s  true,’  the  w’ithess  replied. 

“Did  you  exercise  that  authority?” 
asked  Mr.  Mitchell. 

The  sheriff  replied  in  the  negative. 

“Is  it  not  true,”  Mr.  Mitchell  continu- 
ed “that  every  time  you  notified  me 
of  impending  trouble  I sent  officers  or 
members  of  the  union  to  help  in  pre- 
venting it?’ 

“I  don’t  know  about  every  time,” 
replied  the  sheriff.  “I  know  of  you 
having  done  it  several  times.” 

Mr.  Mitchell  tried  to  bring  out  that 
on  the  night  the  call  was  made  for 
the  troops,  the  sheriff  was  in  con- 
sultation with  a number  of  attorneys 
for  the  coal  companies.  The  w'itness 
affirmed,  positively  that  it  was  not  un- 
till after  he  had  made  the  call  that  he 
consulted  the  attorneys. 

"Mr.  O’Brien,  here,  is  your  attorney 
and  also  attorney  for  a number  of  the 
operators,  is  he  not?”  asked  Mr.  Mit- 
chell. 

“Fie  is  my  attorney,”  said  the  w'it- 
ness,” but  I do  not  know’  of  his  being 
attorney  for  any  operators.” 

"I’ve  been  agin’  them  for  twenty 
years,”  remarked  Mr.  O’Brien. 

The  sheriff  admitted,  in  answ’er  to 
Mr.  Mitchell’s  query  that  the  second 
contingent  of  troops  for  Lackawanna 


county  came  without  his  knowledge. 
He  denied  that  the  crowds  he  found 
when  responding  to  calls  for  assistance 
were  made  up  of  women  and  children. 
“There  were  men  there,  too,’  said  the 
sheriff. 

"Do  you  remember  saying  to  me  at 
Lake  Harvey.”  queried  Mr.  Mitchell, 
“that  it  was  a few  fellows  here  and 
there  w’ho  were  creating  the  bother, 
and  that  generally  speaking  the  people 
w’ere  orderly.” 

The  sheriff  answered  in  the  affirm- 
ative. 

Later  Major  Warren  asked  if  this  was 
not  in  the  early  part  of  the  strike,  and 
the  witness  said  he  thought  it  was. 
Mr.  Mitchell  reminded  the  sheriff  that 
the  trip  to  Harvey’s  lake  took  place 
in  September.  The  sheriff  agreed  that 
this  was  correct. 

Mr.  Michell  also  elicited  the  statement 
that  the  sheriff  paid  the  forty-five  ex- 
tra deputies  who  served  during  the 
strike,  and  that  the  coal  companies 
reimbursed  him. 

General  Wilson  asked  wrhy  the  county 
had  not  paid  the  bill.  Attorney  Lena- 
han explained  that  the  law  provides  for 
the  payment  being  made  by  the  com- 
panies. 

An  Un-American  Law. 

Judge  Gray  denounced  such  a law  as 
un-American.  “When  the  body-poli- 
tic,” said  he,  “relinquishes  the  protec- 
tion of  life  and  property,  it  is  in  a 
fair  w’ay  to  dissolution.  It  is  un-Amer- 
ican.” 

Mr.  O’Brien  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  sheriff  employed  forty- 
five  extra  deputies  during  the  strike 
and  that  at  present  not  a single  extra 
deputy  is  employed. 

President  Mitchell  brought  up  the 
case  of  the  foreigner  who  w-as  shot 
in  the  head  and  killed,  just  outside  the 
William  A.  stockade  and  tried  to  have 
the  sheriff  confirm  the  story  that  the 
coal  and  iron  police  at  the  colliery  shot 
him  and  then  had  the  bullet  removed 
that  the  act  could  not  be  traced  to 
any  of  them.  The  sheriff  knew’  noth- 
ing about  it  further  than  that  the  bullet 
evidently  lodged  in  the  head  but  could 
not  be  found  by  the  coroner. 

Mr.  O’Brien  developed  the  fact  that 
the  coal  and  iron  police  arrested  for 
the  shooting  were  acquitted  by  the 
grand  jury  for  lack  of  evidence.  He 
also  tried  to  show  by  the  sheriff  that 
the  county  detective  is  now  working 
on  a theory  that  the  man  was  murdered 
by  some  of  his  fellow  countrymen.  The 
witness  knew  nothing  of  it.  This  end- 
ed the  sheriff’s  testimony. 

Lyman  Troop,  of  Plymouth,  an  aged 
man,  testified  that  he  worked  during 
the  strike  for  the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes- 
Barre  Coal  company  as  a timber  cutter. 
Sept.  15  a crowd  of  fifteen  held  him 
up  on  his  W’ay  to  work,  kicked  him 
and  cuffed  him  for  a quarter  of  a mile. 
He  was  laid  up  for  three  weeks  and 
four  days  as  a result  of  the  beating. 
His  principal  assailants  were  two  for- 
eigners. They  did  all  the  kicking  and 


cuffing.  He  was  told  that  he  would  be 
shot  if  he  went  to  work  again.  Some 
days  later  he  found  a letter  in  his  front 
yard  containing  a threat  to  burn  his 
house  if  he  resumed  work. 

Attorney  James  L.  Lenahan,  on  cross- 
examination,  brought  out  the  fact  that 
the  witness  did  not  have  any  one  ar- 
rested for  the  assault.  Judge  Gray 
asked  why.  The  witness  said  he  could 
not  get  Burgess  Walters  to  issue  a 
warrant.  The  witness  admitted  he  told 
the  burgess  he  did  not  know  the  names 
of  his  assailants,  but  could  identify 
them. 

Judg-e  Gray  Indignant. 

Judge  Gray  expressed  indignation  on 
learning  that  an  officer  of  the  law  had 
thus  failed  in  his  duty. 

"This  ’squire  deserves  the  advertis- 
ing he  is  getting  today,”  said  the  judge 
with  meaningful  tones.  "He  should 
be  pillioried  as  one  magistrate  in  the 
state  of  Pennsylvania  who  notoriously 
and  obviously  didn’t  do  his  duty.” 

“But  he  couldn’t  tell  the  names,  your 
honor,”  suggested  Attorney  James  L. 
Lenahan. 

“Oh,  pshaw!”  exclaimed  Judge  Gray 
in  disgust. 

Attorney  John  T.  Lenahan  called  at- 
tention to  the  provision  of  the  law  that 
a warrant  can  be  directed  against  an 
unknown  person  under  the  fictitious 
names  of  John  Doe  or  Richard  Roe. 

William  Jenkins,  of  Wilkes-Barre, 
worked  for  the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes- 
Barre  Coal  company  at  No.  11  colliery 
at  Plymouth,  in  the  early  part  of  the 
strike.  June  23,  while  he  and  four 
other  workmen  were  leaving  for  home 
at  6 o’clock  p.  m.,  a crowd  of  300  men 
and  women  made  a rush  for  him,  hit 
him  in  the  back  with  a stick,  and  threw 
him  back  into  the  stockade,  and  down 
a dirt  hank.  He  went  out  another  w'ay 
and  got  home.  The  blow  and  fall 
caused  internal  injuries  which  laid  him 
up  in  Mercy  hospital  for  seventy  days. 

After  coming  from  the  hospital  he 
went  to  Plymouth  one  day  to  attend  to 
some  private  business.  Four  men  held 
him  up  and  made  him  return.  Mat- 
thew Davidson  said  as  he  approached: 

“Here’s  the  Yankee of  a 

scab  that’s  firing  at  No.,  11,”  and  then 
told  the  -witness  to  get  out  of  the  bor- 
ough or  he  would  get  his  “medicine.” 
Davidson  and  Thomas  R.  Edwards,  two 
of  the  four,  were  United  Mine  Workers, 
the  witness  said.  “The  other  two  gen- 
tlemen,” said  the  witness,  “were  named 
James.” 

Outside  Foreman  Thomas  Robinson, 
of  the  Stanton  colliery  of  the  Lehigh 
and  Wilkes-Barre  company,  at  Wilkes- 
Barre,  testified  that  the  mine  has  not 
been  able  to  work  even  yet  because 
of  being  flooded.  The  flooding  resulted 
from  the  inability  of  the  company  to 
keep  men  at  work  at  the  pumps,  be- 
cause of  the  frequent  attacks  made  by 
mobs  of  stone-throwers  from  the  close- 
ly adjacent  hill  tops,  and  other  acts 
of  violence  against  the  workmen.  The 
trestle  at  the  breaker  was  set  afire, 
a gondola  -was  run  through  the  gate, 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

and  later  the  stockade  was  set  afire. 
Members  of  the  fire  department  were 
stoned  while  extinguishing  the  fire. 

The  flooding  of  the  mine  has  thrown 
between  600  and  700  idle.  It  will  take 
some  weeks  before  the  mining  of  coal 
can  be  resumed. 

A 10-year-old  boy  was  shot  just  out- 
side the  stockade  the  day  after  the 
second  fire.  It  was  believed  he  was 
shot  from  within  the  stockade,  the  wit- 
ness admitted,  but  the  guards  were 
acquitted  by  the  grand  jury. 

Experience  of  John  Jones. 

John  T.  Jones,  of  Sugar  Notch,  who 
worked  at  the  No.  9 colliery  of  the 
Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre  company 
during  the  strike  told  of  his  house 
having  been  ransacked  during  the 
strike,  his  dead  wife’s  picture  mutilat- 
ed, his  overcoat  stolen  and  indecencies 
perpetrated. 

He  created  a ripple  of  excitement  by 
testifying  that  on  Sunday  morning 
last  while  he  was  in  bed  some  one 
stood  outside  his  house  and  called  to 
him  that  he  would  be  killed  if  he 
went  to  Philadelphia  to  testify  before 
the  strike  commission.  Sunday  night, 
he  was  stoned  and  called  a scab.  He 
could  not  tell  who  did  these  things. 
He  knew  it  was  union  men,  he  said. 

“How  do  you  know  it  was  union 
men?”  asked  Commissioner  Clark. 

“Because  non-union  men  would  not 
do  such  things,”  the  witness  replied 
at  which  there  was  applause  from  the 
crowd  of  non-unionists  waiting  to  be 
called  as  witnesses. 

Edward  Stewart,  of  Westmoreland, 
who  gave  his  occupation  as  “bricklay- 
er’s assistant”  and  afterwards  explain- 
ed for  Judge  Gray’s  benefit  that  this 
was  what  is  commonly  comprehended 
in  the  term  “hod-carrier,”  told  of  be- 
ing assaulted  and  robbed  by  a crowd 
of  strikers  on  his  way  to  work  at 
the  Nottingham  colliery,  on  October 
4.  He  swore  that  a borough  policeman 
rescued  him  from  the  mob — after  he 
was  badly  battered. 

The  first  witness  of  the  afternoon, 
John  Lucksie,  a butcher  from  Cooper 
Hill,  Kingston  township,  told  of  being 
boycotted  and  stoned  by  strikers.  He 
lost  $400  in  the  first  three  months  of 
the  strike  and  closed  up  his  shop.  He 
could  not  afford  to  remain  idle  and 
took  a job  as  fireman  at  the  Kingston 
colliery.  The  abuse  that  was  heaped 
on  his  family  induced  him  to  give  up 
the  job.  He  went  to  work  at  the  Reich- 
art  & Company  brewery,  in  Wilkes- 
Barre,  and  strikers  succeeded  in  hav- 
ing him  discharged.  He  was  stoned 
and  his  house  was  also  attacked  by 
stone-throwers. 

Murder  of  Italians. 

John  Morris,  of  Forty  Fort,  who 
worked  at  the  Maltby  colliery  of  the 
Lehigh  Valley  company,  testified  that 
he  heard  of  a raid  being  planned  on 
the  colliery  for  Sept.  8,  and  that  on 
that  date  a raid  occurred.  The  tele- 
phone wires  leading  to  the  colliery 


111 

were  cut  before  the  raid  occurred.  A 
crowd  of  125  marched  towards  the 
breaker.  On  the  way  they  met  an 
Italian  carrying  a gun.  He  was  a 
striker  bound  for  a day’s  hunting,  in 
company  with  a fellow-countryman. 
The  mob  took  them  for  guards  and  at- 
tacked them  with  clubs  and  guns.  One 
of  the  two  Italians  was  shot  dead; 
the  other  got  away.  This  put  an  end 
to  the  raid.  The  men  comprising  the 
mob,  the  witness  averred,  were  all 
strikers  and  members  of  the  union. 

The  witness  would  not  tell  the  name 
of  the  man  who  gave  him  the  informa- 
tion that  the  raid  was  to  take  place. 
Judge  Gray  would  not  let  him  say 
whether  or  not  his  informant  was  a 
union  man. 

John  B.  S.  Keeler,  foreman  at  the 
Maltby,  gave  a history  of  the  exper- 
iences with  the  union  men  at  his  col- 
liery from  the  time 'of  the  1900  strike 
on. 

Nov.  5,  1900,  the  men  struck  because 
the  company  would  not  discharge  non- 
union men  who  had  been  hired  during 
the  strike.  November  14,  they  returned 
to  work,  admitting  they  had  done 
wrong.  In  the  following  March,  the 
breaker  bovs  went  on  a brief  strike. 
March  25,  1901,  the  whole  force  struck, 
because  two  of  the  union  had  been  dis- 
charged. One  was  a boy,  charged  with 
killing  a mule.  The  men  went  baik 
without  gaining  any  concessions.  July 
16,  1901,  the  firemen  went  on  strike, 
and  the  next  day  the  engineers  struck. 
The  miners  struck  shortly  afterwards 
because  of  their  aversion  to  using 
“scab”  steam.  They  returned,  but 
again,  on  Aug.  2,  1901.  the  miners  quit, 
because  of  the  “scab”  steam.  This 
strike  continued  until  the  strike  of  1902 
was  settled. 

Foreman  Keeler  told  of  the  raid  of 
Sept.  8,  1902,  when  the  Italian  hunter 
was  killed,  and  of  the  finding  of  a 
United  Mine  Workers’  membership 
card  on  the  person  of  the  murdered 
man.  Neither  the  murdered  man  nor 
his  companion  were  known  to  the  wit- 
ness. They  did  not  work  at  the  Malt- 
by, he  was  sure. 

In  response  to  questions  by  Judge 
Gray,  the  witness  said  he  made  efforts 
to  get  men  to  take  the  strikers’  places, 
but  the  best  he  could  do  was  to  main- 
tain force  sufficient  to  keep  the  mine 
from  flooding. 

Conductor  Shot  at  . 

Thomas  Franklin,  a Jersey  Central 
conductor,  testified  as  to  an  experiem  e 
he  had  in  taking  trains  of  coal  from 
Wanamie  to  Ashley.  Sept.  20,  1902.  a 
shot  was  fired  at  the  engine.  The  bul- 
let struck  the  dome  of  the  engine. 
Three  days  later,  the  train  encountered 
ties  and  other  obstruction  on  the  track 
at  Warrior  Run,  and  at  Sugar  Notch 
ran  into  an  open  switch,  which  had 
been  opened  by  breaking  the  lock.  The 
train  was  stoned  at  different  points. 
Elmer  Butz,  engineer  of  the  train, 
corroborated  the  conductor's  story. 

Joseph  Becker,  foreman  at  No.  11 


112 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


colliery  of  the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre 
company,  at  Plymouth,  told  of  attacks 
on  himself  and  other  workmen,  and  of 
the  sleeping  quarters  within  the  stock- 
ade being  stoned  at  night.  Between 
120  and  150  windows  were  broken  in  an 
isolated  engine  house  and  the  brass 
mountings  of  the  engine  stolen. 

Mr.  Darrow  contented  himself  with 
gaining  an  admission  that  the  stealing 
of  brass  was  a common  occurrence  in 
the  coal  regions. 

Outside  Foreman  M.  J.  Flaherty,  of 
the  Hollenback  colliery  of  the  Lehigh 
and  Wilkes-Barre,  told  that  the  strikers 
set  fire  to  the  stockade  about  the 
breaker  and  then  stoned  the  men  who 
went  out  to  extinguish  the  fire.  About 
270  feet  of  the  fence  was  destroyed. 
Three  men  who  worked  under  him  dur- 
ing the  strike  were  hung  in  effigy.  Oct. 
5,  at  2 o’clock  in  the  morning,  a stone 
was  thrown  through  the  window  of 
his  bed  room. 

Daniel  McAllister,  a mine  laborer 
from  Maltby,  worked  during  the  strike 
and  besides  the  usual  exoerienees  suf- 
fered the  loss  of  fifty  feet  of  his  picket 


fence.  Eight  windows,  all  told,  were 
broken  in  two  raids  by  stone  throwers. 

David  Richards,  a Lehigh  Valley 
pumpman  from  Maltby,  testified  that  a 
crowd  of  200  held  him  up  one  day  in 
September  while  he  was  on  his  way  to 
work.  Some  one  shouted:  “Shoot  the 

scab,”  and  some  one  did.  The  bullet 
hit  him  in  the  leg. 

Kicked  in  the  Face. 

John  Stroh.  a carpenter  employed  by 
the  Lehigh  Valley  Coal  company,  told 
that  he  was  sandbagged  in  Exeter  bor- 
ough while  on  his  way  to  work.  He 
was  kicked  in  the  face  while  lying  on 
the  ground. 

“You  didn’t  take  anybody’s  job,  did 
you?”  asked  Judge  Gray. 

“No,  sir,”  the  witness  replied. 

Joseph  Adams,  a Lehigh  Valley  team- 
ster from  Sturmerville,  who  refused  to 
quit  work,  was  stoned  and  clubbed,  his 
house  was  bombarded  and  his  milkman 
refused  to  supply  him  with  milk. 

S.  T.  Belles,  another  Stumerville 
teamster  told  that  he  was  hung  in  ef- 
figy and  his  house  was  stoned.  He 
also  recounted  a night  attack  made  by 


two  hundred  strikers  on  a couple  of 
men  returning  from  work.  The  wit- 
ness rescued  one  of  the  victims  and 
started  to  carry  him  into  a barn  for 
safety.  The  mob  threatened  to  burn 
the  barn  if  the  wounded  man  was 
placed  in  it. 

David  Harris,  a fire  boss  for  the 
Lehigh  Valley  company  at  West  Pitts- 
ton,  told  of  being  attacked  by  a mob 
and  shot  at.  On  one  occasion,  he  said. 
Patrick  Brown,  president  of  a local  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers,  stood  by 
and  witnessed  one  of  these  attacks. 
The  witness  averred  that  thirty  shots 
were  fired  at  him. 

Frank  L.  Robbins,  a Lehigh  Valley 
shipping  clerk,  from  Plymouth,  told  of 
a mob  of  800,  half  of  them  carrying 
clubs  and  stones,  marching  threaten- 
ingly about  the  stockade  at  No.  11  col- 
liery. The  workmen  did  not  dare  go 
home  that  night.  On  another  occasion 
he  saw  a man  who  was  struck  by  a 
stone  on  his  way  to  work.  The  man’s 
face  was  badly  bruised  and  cut.  He 
heard  afterwards  the  man’s  jaw  was 
broken. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Jan.  7. 

[F'rom  Tine  Scranton  Tribune,  Dec.  S.J 


Tabular  Statement  of  Wages  and  Hours  of  Employment  of  the 
Employes  at  the  Oxford  Colliery,  Operated  by  the  Peo- 
ple’s Coal  Company,  as  Furnished  to  the  Anthra- 
cite Mine  Strike  Commission. 


* 

❖ 

* 

+ 

* 

* 

* 

V 

* 

* 

❖ 

* 

* 

* 

+ 

* 

+ 

* 

4* 

❖ 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 


No.  of  men  earning  $1,000  and  over. 
No.  of  men  earning  $900  and  over... 
No.  of  men  earning  $800  and  over  .. 
No.  of  men  earning  $700  and  over  .. 
No.  of  men  earning  $600  and  over  .. 
No.  of  men  earning  $500  and  over  .. 


General  average  of  wages 


Average  days  worked 
per  man. 


d 

s 

o, 

d 

<D 

bo 

5- 

w 

p 

0 

<D 

a 

< 

m 

0 

1 24%  1 $1,065  58 1 

224| 

146 

2%%l 

997  46| 

255| 

153 

13%| 

857  10| 

250| 

150 

10V2%| 

724  26 | 

2461 

147  6-lf 

26%  | 

641  621 

2471 

148  2-1C 

24%| 

1 

5G1  27| 
j 

250 

150  2-lf 

1 

$770  01 i 

261 

Average  wages  per  breaker  start  for  all  classes,  $2.95. 

4.4.  4'4*4'4'4°4*4a4'4‘4*4‘4*4>°!>4>4*4‘  •*•<* 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  7. — The  second  day 
of  the  Philadelphia  sittings  of  the  mine 
strike  commission  was  devoted  entirely 
to  the  further  hearing  of  the  non-union 
men’s  case.  Tomorrow  and  the  next 
day  will  be  similarly  consumed.  Phila- 
delphia is  awakening  to  the  realization 
of  the  fact  that  something  interesting 
is  doing  in  Ihe  circuit  court  room  in  the 
Federal  building.  There  were  crowds 
unable  to  gain  admittance  at  both  ses- 
sions today,  and,  as  a result,  it  was  de- 
cided to  regulate  admittance,  hereafter, 
by  ticket. 


The  presentation  of  the  non-unionist 
testimony  from  the  Wilkes-Barre  region 
was  concluded  early  this  afternoon,  and 
the  Pottsville  region  was  then  taken  up. 
Attorney  Joseph  O'Brien  conducted  the 
direct-examination,  and  ex-Congress- 
man  Charles  Brumm,  of  Pottsville, 
cross-examined  for  the  miners. 

All  the  executive  officers  of  the  Nich- 
olls  and  Fahy  districts  are  now  here. 
The  officers  from  the  Duffy  district  are 
detained  by  their  district  convention. 

W.  H.  Taylor,  one  of  the  Scranton 
independent  operators,  arrived  today. 


The  non-union  men  will  likely  take  up 
the  rest  of  the  week.  Among  the  wit- 
nesses to  be  put  on  by  them  tomorrow 
and  Friday  are  Brigadier  General  J.  P. 
S.  Gobin.  Colonel  Watres,  Colonel  Clem- 
ents, Colonel  Dougherty  and  other  com- 
manders of  the  National  Guard  who 
did  strike  duty.  They  will  be  expected 
to  show  that  even  with  the  troops  in 
the  field  the  respect  for  law  in  the  strike 
territory  was  not  all  that  it  should  be. 


FIRST  STORY  OF  THE  DAY. 


E.  C.  Tiffany,  of  Ashley,  Tells  of  the 
Work  of  Dynamiters. 

The  first  story  of  the  day  was  about 
dynamiting.  E.  C.  Tiffany,  of  Ashley, 
foreman  for  the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes- 
Barre  company,  told  that  on  Septem- 
ber IS,  at  3 o’clock  a.  m.,  the  dam  of 
the  reservoir  supplying  No.  8 washery 
was  blown  up  and  the  next  day  he 
found  near  by  an  empty  dynamite  box 
such  as  is  supplied  to  collieries.  The 
company  was  compelled  to  use  city 
water  to  operate  the  washery. 

Mr.  Darrow  tried  to  destroy  the  sup- 
position that  the  dam  was  dynamited 
by  showing  that  empty  dynamite  cans 
are  thrown  about  promiscuously  in  the 
neighborhood  of  collieries. 

Robert  A.  Reed,  outside  foreman  at 
No.  18  colliery  of  the  Lehigh  and 
Wilkes-Barre  company,  at  Wanamie, 
testified  that  on  September  26,  late  In 
the  night,  he  was  notified  at  his  home 
that  there  was  some  shooting  going  on 
in  the  neighborhood  of  a steam  shovel 
which  the  company  had  In  operation  at 
a distant  dump.  He  took  a locomotive 
and  hurried  six  guards  to  the  scene. 


The  shooting  continued  even  after  the 
guards  arrived,  but  it  was  impossible 
to  locate  the  shooters.  Two  . of  the 
shots  were  from  rifles,  the  witness 
judged.  On  the  return  trip,  the  loco- 
motive encountered  a quantity  of  dy- 
namite, which  had  been  placed  on  the 
track,  evidently  while  the  guards  were 
at  the  steam  shovel.  The  cab  win- 
dows were  wrecked,  and  the  witness, 
who  was  acting  as  engineer,  was  ren- 
dered unconscious.  The  engine  kept 
going  for  half  a mile  before  he  re- 
covered his  senses.  A hole  eighteen 
inches  deep  was  found  in  the  road- 
bed at  the  point  where  the  explosion 
took  place. 

George  W.  Jasper,  of  Wilkes-Barre, 
who  worked  as  a coal  and  iron  police- 
man at  Stanton,  No.  7,  colliery,  Wilkes- 
Barre,  during  the  strike,  told  that  oil- 
soaked  cotton  waste  was  placed  against 
the  fence  of  the  stockade  before  it 
was  set  afire,  and  that  on  the  night  the 
trestle  was  burned,  five  boys  were  seen 
walking  on  the  trestle,  one  of  them 
bearing  a can,  from  which  he  was 
pouring  some  liquid  on  the  timbers. 

Compelled  to  Leave  Town. 

Mrs.  Thomas  P.  Jordan,  whose  hus- 
band worked  at  Lost  Creek,  Schuyl- 
kill county,  during  the  strike,  told  that 
sii;  was  compelled  to  move  with  her 
children  to  Philadelphia  to  escape  the 
abuse  of  their  neighbors.  The  husband 
remained  in  the  stockade.  The  ch'l- 
dren  became  sick  and  she  took  them 
back  to  Lost  Creek,  after  ten  days,  to 
live  with  her  husband’s  mother.  They 
remained  there  six  weeks,  when  they 
again  ventured  back  to  their  home. 
The  second  night  they  were  there,  Mrs. 
Jordan  heard  a crash  and  going  down 
stairs  found  that  a large  stone  had 
been  thrown  through  the  front  win- 
dow. Mrs.  Jordan  also  told  of  the 
butcher,  baker  and  grocer  refusing  to 
sell  her  goods.  She  and  the  children 
subsisted  on  provisions  supplied  from 
the  commissary  at  the  mine. 

Robert  McCann,  of  Plains  township, 
who  was  a hoisting  engineer  for  twen- 
ty-four years,  told  that  he  was  held 
up  three  different  times  and  shot  at 
and  stoned  going  to  and  from  his 
work.  A committee  of  United  Mine 
Workers,  he  said,  waited  on  him  and 
told  him  if  he  did  not  quit  work  the 
miners  would  refuse  to  work  with  him 
after  the  strike  ended,  and,  further- 
more, his  daughter  would  be  discharged 
from  her  position  as  teacher  in  the 
township  school.  He  refused  to  quit, 
and  a committee  of  Mine  Workers 
waited  on  the  school  board  and  pro- 
tested against  his  daughter  being  re- 
employed as  a school  teacher.  The 
protest,  however,  was  unavailing. 

On  cross  examination,  McCann  told 
that  he  was  receiving  $82.50  a month 
for  twelve  hours  a day  and  that  while 
he  would  prefer  an  eight-hour  day,  he 
was  quite  content  to  work  twelve,  as 
he  had  been  doing  for  twenty-four 
years. 

J.  E.  Pinch,  a coal  and  iron  police- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

man,  exhibited  the  dynamite  box  found 
near  the  Ashley  dam,  and  a few  pieces 
of  stick  dynamite  which  were  picked 
up  on  the  track  near  where  the  loco- 
motive was  dynamited  in  Wanamie.  He 
also  exhibited  a “notice”  found  on  a 
company  building  along  the  coal  road 
on'  which  the  dynamiting  took  place. 
The  notice  was  printed  with  pen  and 
ink  on  a 6x8  square  of  white  paper, 
the  border  of  which  was  ornamented 
with  skulls  and  crossbones. 

House  Badly  "Wrecked. 

Kate  Steckroth,  a young  girl  from 
Hazle  township,  whose  father  worked 
for  Pardee  & Co.,  testified  that  on  the 
night  of  September  8,  at  11  o’clock, 
their  home  was  attacked  by  a large 
crowd  and  badly  wrecked.  All  the 
windows  on  two  sides  were  broken, 
the  balustrade  and  steps  of  the  porch 
taken  away  and  200  feet  of  the  fence 
torn  down.  The  mother  and  her  four 
week’s  old  babe  had  to  seek  shelter  in 
an  inside  room.  After  this,  the  house 
was  continually  guarded  by  men  fur- 
nished by  Pardee  & Co. 

George  Ford,  docking  boss  at  the 
Prospect  colliery,  in  Plains  township, 
told  about  being  held  up  and  badly 
beaten.  A crowd  of  four  or  five  men 
grabbed  him  one  night,  pinioned  his 
arms  and  began  to  reason  with  him  to 
this  effect:  “George,  old  man,  you 

oughtn’t  to  be  working.  You  should  be 
ashamed  of  yourself.  We  counted  on 
you  to  stand  by  us.”  The  witness  dis- 
cussed the  situation  for  a while  and 
finally  admitted  he  was  not  in  love 
with  the  idea  of  working  during  the 
strike  and  would  quit  at  once.  Good 
nights  were  exchanged  and  Ford  start- 
ed away.  He  had  gone  only  ten  feet 
when  he  heard  a step  behind  him  and 
turning  received  a blow  in  the  nose 
which  broke  the  bridge  and  rendered 
him  unconscious.  When  he  was  on  the 
ground  he  was  kicked  and  his  pockets 
rifled. 

The  witness  also  told  that  he  had  to 
withdraw  from  the  union  after  the  1901 
Hazleton  convention.  The  convention 
gave  permission  to  docking  bosses  and 
fire  bosses  to  withdraw.  District  Su- 
perintendent Shoemaker  told  the  wit- 
ness what  the  convention  had  done, 
and  directed  him  to  secure  a withdraw- 
al card  before  a certain  day  or  quit 
work. 

A “Local”  Order. 

Edward  Quinn,  a coal  company  clerk 
from  Wilkes-Barre  presented  in  evid- 
ence an  interesting  and  important 
document.  It  read  as  follows: 

U.  M.  W.  A. 

Local  484. 

Martin  Bubble,  Secretary. 

Wilkes-Barre,  Aug.  28,  1902. 
To  Whom  It  May  Concern: 

Do  not  interfere  with  Lewis  Bubble  to 
and  from  work. 

Martin  Bubble,  Secretary. 
James  Gallagher. 

[Seal  of  Local  484.] 

The  Bubbles  are  brothers.  The  one 
who  was  working  had  charge  of  a con- 
veyor line  at  a Wilkes-Barre  washery. 


113 

Few  stories  the  commissioners  have 
heard  have  been  listened  to  with  closer 
attention  that  that  which  was  told  this 
morning  by  Thomas  Washniski,  of 
Hazleton.  He  is  23  years  of  age,  and 
worked  as  a clerk  in  a grocery  store. 
During  the  strike  he  was  accused  fre- 
quently of  being  a “scab,”  and  finally 
decided  as  long  as  he  had  the  name 
of  it  he  would  have  the  gain  of  it,  and 
accepted  a position  as  a waiter  at  the 
No.  40  shaft  commissary. 

He  was  engaged  to  be  married  on 
Sept.  16,  and  proceeded  to  keep  the 
engagement.  With  his  bride,  her  sister 
and  his  brother  he  drove  to  Rev.  Father 
Aust’s  church.  A crowd  of  200  sur- 
rounded the  carriage  when  it  stopped 
at  the  church  door.  He  was  grabbed 
by  the  coat  by  a man  in  the  crowd 
and  jostled  about.  His  brother  rescued 
him  and  he  hurried  into  the  church 
with  his  bride.  The  crowd  called  him 
“scab”  and  other  vile  names,  and  kept 
shouting  opprobrious  epithets  while  the 
ceremony  was  being  performed.  The 
groom’s  father,  who  is  a union  man, 
was  assaulted  when  he  entered  a pro- 
test. When  the  ceremony  was  con- 
cluded the  bridal  party  found  the  crowd 
so  turbulent  that  it  was  decided  best 
not  to  leave  the  church,  and  they  re- 
paired to  Father  Aust’s  home,  by  a 
rear  exit. 

Jeered  the  Priest. 

The  mob  assembled  in  front  of  the 
parochial  residence  and  called  on  Fath- 
er Aust  to  turn  out  the  scabs  or  they 
would  bombard  the  house.  Father  Aust 
appeared  and  pleaded  with  the  mob 
to  disperse.  He  was  hooted  and  jeered 
and  called  “scab  priest.”  One  of  the 
crowd  called  out  “You  marry  scabs, 
then  you’re  a scab.”  Threats  to  tear 
down  the  house  were  made  unless  the 
“scab”  bride  and  groom  were  turned 
over  to  the  mob.  Father  Aust  tried  to 
smuggle  the  bridal  party  away  by  hav- 
ing the  carriage  come  around  to  the 
rear  of  the  house,  but  the  crowd  held 
up  the  driver  and  induced  him  to  de- 
part. 

The  two  women  of  the  bridal  party, 
under  escort  of  the  groomsman,  who 
was  a union  man,  braved  the  fury  of 
the  mob  and  got  away  on  a trolley  car. 
They  went  to  the  home  of  the  bride's 
father.  After  two  hours  had  elapsed, 
the  groom  under  escort  of  two  armed 
deputy  sheriffs  was  safely  escorted  out 
of  the  house  and  into  the  shelter  of  the 
stockade  of  No.  40  colliery.  They  were 
hit  by  stones  but  not  hurt.  The  groom 
did  not  venture  to  join  his  bride  until 
the  next  night. 

The  witness  also  told  that  Alex  Com- 
lnsky,  one  of  the  men  who  composed 
the  mob,  told  him  some  time  later  that 
“Father  Aust  would  get  his  other  leg 
broke”  for  marrying  a “scab,”  and  al- 
lowing his  telephone  to  be  used  to  call 
the  deputies  who  escorted  the  bride- 
groom away  from  his  home.  Father 
Aust  had  recently  sustained  a broken 
leg  in  a railroad  accident. 

“Where  did  all  this  take  place?” 


114 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Judge  Gray  inquired  of  Attorney  Lena- 
han. 

"In  Hazleton,  a city  of  15,000  popu- 
lation,” Mr.  Lenahan  informed  him. 

“They  have  police  officers  there,  I 
suppose?”  said  the  judge. 

"Some  few  at  some  times,”  replied 
Mr.  Lenahan. 

Judge  Gray’s  Comment. 

Judge  Gray  shook  his  head  wonder- 
ingly,  as  he  remarked:  "What  kind  of 
a community  is  that,  anyhow?” 

At  this  juncture,  Attorney  James  H. 
Torrey  took  occasion  to  explain  to  the 
commission  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania 
bearing  on  the  matter  of  corporations 
reimbursing  a sheriff  for  the  services  of 
special  deputies,  which  Judge  Gray 
yesterday  characterized  as  an  un- 
American  law. 

"Without  appearing  as  a critic  of  this 
grand  old  commonwealth,”  said  the 
judge,  “I  want  to  say  that  this  is  a 
most  deplorable  state  of  law.  It  is  only 
the  rich,  those  who  can  afford  to  pay 
for  special  deputies,  who  can  have  full 
protection  of  their  life  and  property.” 

Mr.  Torrey  agreed  with  the  judge, 
and  said  he  could  give  assurance  that 
the  coal  operators  would  join  with  the 
miners  in  having  the  law  changed,  so 
that  the  public,  and  not  private  parties, 
would  assume  the  burden  of  reimburs- 
ing a sheriff  under  the  circumstances 
in  question. 

Attorney  James  L.  Lenahan  asked 
Mr.  Torrey  if  it  was  not  true  that  the 
sheriff  has  power  to  compel  citizens  to 
serve  as  deputies.  Mr.  Torrey  admitted 
that  this  was  the  law,  but  pointed  out 
that  any  deputy  thus  impressed  would 
be  worse  than  useless.  "He  would  not 
perform  his  duties,”  declared  Mr.  Tor- 
rey, "unless  the  sheriff  had  him  by  the 
neck  all  the  time.  It  is  only  the  volun- 
teer or  paid  deputy  who  will  actually 
serve.” 

More  stories  of  non-union  men  were 
then  heard.  William  H.  Wallace  in- 
side foreman  for  the  Lehigh  Valley 
company  at  West  Pittston,  testified 
that  Patrick  Braun,  president  of  the 
local  at  bis  colliery,  told  him  on  Sep- 
tember 23  it  would  be  made  so  hot 

for  the  "scabs”  at  his  place  that  they 
would  not  be  there  a week  from  that 
time.  Five  days  later  an  armed  mob 
of  several  hundred  surrounded  the  col- 
liery. David  Richards,  a miner,  was 
shot:  Fireboss  Harris  was  beaten  and  a 
deputy  sheriff,  who  tried  to  get  the  mob 
to  disperse,  was  felled  with  a stone  and 
shot  at  twice.  Braun  was  in  the  mob. 

Howard  Calley,  a Lehigh  Valley  fore- 
man from  Wilkes-Barre,  told  of  being 
hung  in  effigy  and  of  his  being  boy- 
cotted by  his  grocer,  milk  dealer  and 
laundryman. 

Fred  Lawrence,  a 17-yea.r-old  Hazle- 
ton journalist,  who  went  to  work  as  a 
waiter  at  the  No.  40  colliery  commis- 
sary, told  of  being  stabbed  In  the  side 
by  Salvatore  Peccili,  an  Italian  youth, 
whom  he  encountered  while  on  his  way 
to  work,  September  19. 

In  Maysvllle,  Coal  township,  North- 


umberland county,  fifty  teachers  are 
employed.  Last  June  the  school  board 
re-employed  all  of  them  except  one. 
That  one  was  Miss  Maud  Leizer,  whose 
brother  worked  during  the  strike.  She 
was  a teacher  for  three  years,  and  in 
proof  of  her  competency  she  has  a cer- 
tificate from  the  supervising  principal, 
which  sets  forth  that  she  is  in  every 
way  highly  qualified  to  teach  school. 

Miss  Leizer  testified  that  she  and  her 
mother  waited  on  School  Director  Al- 
bert DeLong  and  secured  from  him  an 
admission  that  she  was  refused  re-em- 
ployment because  of  her  brother  re- 
fusing to  quit  work. 

Maud  Leizer’s  Testimony. 

There  was  much  of  a significant  na- 
ture in  the  testimony  of  Miss  Leizer. 
It  is  given  below,  substantially  in  full: 
Q.  Did  you  get  a school  this  year,  were 
you  re-employed  this  year?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Go  on  and  tell  the  circumstances.  A. 
Simply  because  my  brother  worked  during 
the  strike.  He  had  been  appointed  clerk 
for  the  Union  Coal  company  and  a com- 
mittee of  the  men  came  to  our  house  and 
said  if  my  brother  kept  on  working  my 
father’s  business  and  my  position  was  at 
stake. 

Q.  A committee  of  men?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
three  men.  Q.  Who  were  they?  A.  Jacob 
Fry  and  James  Madden. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  other  man?  A.  He 
is  a foreigner. 

Q.  They  are  union  men?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
The  Chairman:  They  are  not  man- 

ly men,  whether  they  are  union  men  or 
not. 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  I guess  we 

will  agree  about  that.  That  is  something 
Mr.  Darrow  will  agree  with  me  on. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Oh,  no,  I will  not.  I 

stand  for  the  boycott. 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  Q.  Did  you 

talk,  or  did  you  hear  any  of  the  direc- 
tors say  anything  to  your  mother,  or 
father,  either  before,  or  after  the  teach- 
ers were  employed  and  you  were  not  em- 
ployed? A.  The  Monday  after  the  teach- 
ers were  employed  my  mother  and  I 
went  to  see  the  directors.  We  could  see 
only  one,  Mr.  Albert  DeLong,  of  Brady. 
My  mother  asked  him  why  it  was  I lost 
my  position.  He  hesitated  a moment. 
She  says,  “It  is  because  her  brother  is 
working,  isn’t  it?”  "Yes.  that’s  it.” 

Q.  Did  you  see  one  of  the  directors  be- 
fore? A.  Yes,  Mr.  Landau,  of  Shamokin. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you?  A.  I said 
“Can  you  do  anything  for  me?”  "I  am 
very  sorry,  Maud,  but  I cannot.” 

Q.  During  the  whole  period  that  you 
were  engaged  in  the  public  schools  there 
for  three  years,  was  there  ever  any  com- 
plaint made  against  your  competency,  or 
your  attention  to  duty?  A.  No,  sir.  Q. 
Before  you  came  down  to  the  commission 
did  you  receive  from  the  supervising  prin- 
cipal of  the  public  school  of  that  town- 
ship a certificate?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan  read  the  letter  as 
follows: 

"Albert  Lloyd,  Superintendent  of  Coal 
Township’s  Public  Schools.  1101  Che- 
mung Street. 

"Shamokin,  Pa.,  Jan.  1,  1903. 
“To  Whom  It  May  Concern: 

"This  is  to  certify  that  Miss  Maude 
Leiser,  of  Shamokin,  Pa.,  has  been  a 
teacher  under  my  supervision  for  three  (31 
years.  I have  always  found  her  honest 
in  purpose  and  conscientious  In  the  per- 


formance of  her  duties.  She  is  well 
qualified  and  possesses  a good  character. 
I cheerfully  recommend  her  to  school  di- 
rectors desiring  to  engage  a good  teacher. 

"Very  respectfully. 

(Signed)  “Albert  Lloyd.” 

The  Chairman:  Who  is  Albert  Lloyd? 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  Supervising 

principal  of  the  public  schools  of  Coal 
township. 

Cross-Examination. 

' Cross  Examined  by  Mr.  Darrow.  Miss 
Leiser  said  she  had  taught  two  years  in 
Fairview  and  one  year  in  Springfield,  both 
in  Coal  township. 

Q.  What  is  your  father’s  business?  A. 
He  is  in  the  hotel  business. 

Q.  How  long  has  he  been  in  the  hotel 
business?  A.  One  year. 

Q.  What  was  his  business  before  that? 
A.  Running  a hoisting  engine:  lost  his  po- 
sition because  he  came  out  with  the 
strikers  the  other  time. 

Q.  Your  brother  was  arrested  for  over- 
docking the  men,  was  he  not?  A.  Yes, 
sir,  he  was,  but  he  was  found  innocent. 

Q.  Was  he  ever  tried?  A.  No,  sir,  the 
superintendent  said  he  was  honest. 

Q.  The  superintendent  prevented  his  be- 
ing tried,  did  he?  A.  The  superintendent 
said  he  was  honest. 

Q.  He  was  arrested  for  over-charging? 
A.  He  wasn’t  arrested,  no,  sir. 

Q.  Charges  were  made  against  him? 
A.  Yes,  sir,  there  were. 

Q.  For  over-charging,  for  powder,  or 
supplies?  A.  Yes,  by  some  foreigners 
that  didn’t  know  it. 

Q.  You  have  not  any  prejudice  against 
foreigners?  A.  No,  sir,  I have  not. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  by  a for- 
eigner, being  a school  teacner?  A.  1 have 
dealt  with  them  long  enough  to  know 
what  they  are. 

Q.  What  are  they?  A.  I don’t  think 
they  know  what  they  are  doing  in  this 
country. 

Q.  You  do  not  think  foreigners  ought  to 
be  in  this  country?  A.  Yes,  if  they  can 
behave  themselves. 

Q.  Do  you  think  they  have  not  any  bus- 
iness here  as  a class?  A.  Yes.  I do,  if 
they  can  behave  themselves. 

Q.  Is  that  the  way  you  teach  your  chil- 
dren in  your  school?  A.  I would  like  you 
to  come  and  see. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  I have 

not  time. 

The  Chairman:  What  way,  Mr.  Dar- 

row? 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  they  have  not  any 

business  here? 

The  Chairman:  Unless  they  behave 

themselves,  that  is  what  she  said. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  what  she  said, 

after  she  saw  the  position  she  was  in. 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  Oh.  no. 

Barrow’s  Perseverance. 

The  Chairman:  We  must  interpose 

there,  and  I speak  on  behalf  of  the  com- 
mission I know,  that  you  are  unintention- 
ally, perhaps,  misrepresenting  the  wit- 
ness. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Now,  your  honor 

The  Chairman:  She  said  from  the  first 

and  all  the  time  in  her  opinion  they  had 
business  here  if  they  behaved  themselves. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I do  not  so  understand 

the  record. 

The  Chairman:  Let  the  stenographer 

read  her  testimony. 

(The  stenographer  read  the  cross-exam  - 
ation  of  the  witness). 

The  Chairman:  That  is  the  way  I un- 
derstood it. 


By  Mr.  Darrow:  Q.  Is  that  the  way 

you  teach  your  children  in  school?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  You  teach  them  as  foreign- 
ers exactly  as  you  testify  here? 

The  Chairman:  Or  do  you  teach  them 

anything  about  it? 

The  Witness:  I do  not  deal  with  their 

countries. 

Mr.  Darrow:  You  have  expressed  your 

sentiment  about  them  on  this  examina- 
tion as  you  wish  now  to  be  understood? 

The  Chairman:  A pretty  wise  senti- 

ment, Mr.  Darrow,  as  she  last  expressed 
it? 

Mr.  Darrow:  I do  not  think,  if  those 

are  her  sentiments  she  should  be  em- 
ployed in  a school  where  there  are  for- 
eigners. 

The  Chairman:  Those  that  want  to  live 
up  to  American  standards 

Mr.  Darrow:  It  seems  to  me  it  is  per- 

fectly obvious  this  young  woman  meant 
and  deliberately  did  say,  that  she  had 
this  feeling  against  the  foreigners.  After 
II  pressed  her,  she  said  if  they  behaved 
themselves. 

The  Chairman:  You  heard  the  stenog- 

rapher read  the  notes. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I am  content  with  the 

record  of  it. 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  You  do  not  seem 
to  be. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Did  you  teach  your  term 
out?  A.  Yes,  sir,  I did. 

Q.  You  were  not  re-employed?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  How  many  foreigners  are  there  in 
your  school?  A.  There  were  more  than 
half  foreigners. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  by  a “for- 
eigner?” A.  Why,  1 think  that  people 
that  come  to  this  country  from  another 
country. 

Q.  More  than  half  of  them  come  from 
another  country?  A.  Yes,,  but  1 got 
along  well  with  them. 

Q.  Do  you  make  any  distinction  between 
Irish,  Germans,  Scandinavians  and  Hun- 
garians? A.  No,  sir,  I treat  them  all 
alike  and  got  along. 

Q.  You  said  there  was  a Hungarian  man 
on  this  committee?  A.  Yes,  either  Hun- 
garian or  Polander. 

Q.  How  many  teachers  are  there  that 
are  employed  by  this  board?  A.  Fifty. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  many  were  not 
re-employed  the  next  year?  A.  AH  but 
me. 

Q.  You  were  the  only  one  in  the  school 
that  was  not  re-employed?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  try  to  find  any  work  any- 
where else?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where?  A.  In  the  stores  in  Shamo- 
kin. 

Q.  Did  you  try  to  find  a school*  any- 
where else?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Never  applied  for  a school  any- 
where else?  A.  No,  sir,  there  wasn't  any 
use. 

Q.  Did  you  try?  A.  No,  I thought  the 
men  would  go  against  me  again,  I thought 
there  was  no  use  trying. 

Q.  You  assumed  the  men  would  go 
against  you?  A.  Yes,  the  union  men. 

By  the  Chairman:  Q.  What  were  the 

names  of  those  men  that  came  to  you 
and  notified  you?  A.  Jacob  Fry  and 
James  Madden. 

Q.  They  were  the  ones  who  told  you 
unless  your  brother  ceased  working  you 
would  lose  your  position?  A.  I wasn't 
in  the  same  room  where  these  men  were 
speaking,  but  I heard  it. 

Commissioner  Parker:  They  did  not 

say  that  the  foreigners  charged  you  treat- 
ed their  children  worse  than  any  of  the 
pthers?  A.  No,  sir. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

Leizer  Boycotted. 

Her  father,  Emanuel  Leizer,  followed 
later  on  the  stand  and  told  of  being 
boycotted  beca.use  of  his  son’s  refusal 
to  join  the  strikers.  His  son  did  not 
live  at  home.  The  father  was  a mem- 
ber of  the  United  Mine  Workers  up  to 
1901,  when  he  went  out  on  strike.  He 
could  not  get  his  job  back  and  started 
a hotel.  During  the  last  strike  his  hotel 
was  boycotted.  He  could  neither  get 
any  one  to  sell  him  beer  or  any  one  to 
buy  it  from  him  if  he  had  ij:  to  sell. 
His  place  was  shunned  by  buyer  and 
seller  alike.  He  appealed  to  District 
President  Fahy  to  have  the  boycott 
lifted,  declaring  he  had  no  control  over 
his  son  and  that  he  was  in  no  way  re- 
sponsible for  the  boy’s  refusal  to  quit 
work.  President  Fahy  told  him  he  could 
do  nothing,  as  the  case  had  been  left 
entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Brady  local. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  first  witness  of  the  afternoon, 
Aaron  Kinzer,  outside  foreman  of  the 
No.  9 colliery  of  the  Lehigh  and 
Wilkes-Barre  company,  at  Sugar 
Notch,  told  of  hearing  an  explosion 
late  at  night  and  of  finding,  on  inves- 
tigation that  a steam  pipe  supplying 
the  fan  engine  had  been  demolished. 
His  theory  was  that  the  steam  pipe 
had  been  dynamited. 

George  Jeffrey,  of  Mt.  Carmel,  told 
of  a raid  by  strikers  on  the  Lehigh 
Valley  breaker,  Sunday  September  28. 
The  mob  ransacked  the  engine  room 
and  office,  smashed  the  telephone,  tore 
up  the  books  and  papers  in  the  office 
and  dynamited  a pipe  supplying  steam 
to  the  pumps.  Before  the  pipe  could 
be  repaired,  the  water  in  the  slope 
raised  fifteen  feet.  Five  feet  more  of 
water  would  have  drowned  the  pumps 
and  resulted  in  the  flooding  of  the 
mine.  At  the  time  of  the  raid  there 
was  no  mining  going  on.  It  was  ru- 
mored, however,  that  the  colliery  was 
to  resume  operations. 

The  next  day  a mob  of  300  made  a 
visit  to  the  breaker,  looking  for  work- 
men. The  foreman  hid  his  men  in  the 
chutes  and  other  decidedly  uncom- 
fortable places.  The  mob  kept  watch- 
ers at  the  breaker  until  Tuesday  night. 
The  hidden  men  did  not  dare  show 
themselves  until  8 o’clock  Tuesday 
night. 

George  W.  Good,  a draughtsman  for 
the  Philadelphia  and  Reading  com- 
pany, told  in  detail  the  story  of  the 
Shenandoah  riot  of  July  30,  in  which,  it 
will  be  remembered,  Deputy  Sheriff 
Beddell’s  brother  was  killed,  and  which 
brought  out  the  first  detachment  of 
troops.  Mr.  Good  was  examined  by  At- 
torney O’Brien. 

Good  and  two  machinists,  Messrs. 
Vaughan  and  Bennett,  went  from 
Pottsville  to  Shenandoah  to  repair  a 
pump  at  one  of  the  Reading  breakers. 
They  started  for  the  railroad  station 
on  the  return  journey  about  5 p.  m. 
The  two  machinists  had  their  overalls 
wrapped  up  in  newspapers  and  carried 
them  under  their  arms.  On  the  way 


115 

down  the  railroad  track  a crowd  of 
men  and  women  surrounded  them,  tore 
open  the  packages  and,  discovering  the 
overalls,  proceeded  to  treat  the  trio  in 
the  usual  fashion.  They  were  buffeted 
about  by  the  men,  spat  upon  by  the 
women,  and,  finally,  all  three  were 
felled  by  clubs  and  stones,  and  kicked 
and  cuffed,  as  they  lay  half-senseless 
on  the  ground. 

When  they  succeeded  in  getting  to 
their  feet  they  made  a dash  for  the 
railroad  station  and  succeeded  in 
reaching  it  safely,  with  the  assistance 
of  Deputy  Sheriff  Beddell,  who  hap- 
pened along.  Arriving  at  the  depot, 
they  found  there  an  aged  one-legged 
foreigner,  who  had  been  brutally 
beaten  by  the  mob  some  time  before. 

Locked  in  a Station. 

Deputy  Sheriff  Beddell,  Goo', 
Vaughan,  Bennett  and  the  one-leggel 
man  locked  themselves  in  the  station 
and  telegraphed  for  an  engine.  Tin 
crowd  on  the  outside  grew  in  numbers 
and  turbulence.  The  witness  said  that 
not  less  than  3,000  men,  women  and 
children  were  massed  about  the  depot. 

Four  borough  policemen  arrived 
about  the  time  the  engine  hove  in  sight 
and  made  a way  through  the  crowd  to 
permit  of  the  besieged  men  getting 
aboard  the  engine.  Shooting  was  go- 
ing on  between  the  mob  and  police  on 
the  outside  of  the  crowd,  and  stones 
and  bullets  were  rattling  against  the 
depot  and  through  the  windows.  At 
this  time,  out  on  the  street,  Deputy 
Sheriff  Beddell’s  brother,  who  was 
coming  to  the  rescue  of  the  men  in  the 
depot,  was  mortally  wounded. 

The  men  in  the  depot  were  pelted 
with  stones  as  they  ran  from  the 
ladies’  waiting  room  to  the  engine,  and 
the  witness,  who  was  the  last  to  go  out, 
was  grabbed  by  the  leg  and  pulled 
partly  back  from  the  tender  by  some 
one  in  the  mob.  In  trying  to  save 
himself  from  being  pulled  back  into 
the  mob,  Good  accidentally  thrust  his 
hand  in  the  firebox  and  sustained  ter- 
rible burns.  Deputy  Sheriff  Beddell 
shot  the  man  who  had  hold  of  Good's 
leg  and  caused  him  to  release  his  hold. 
The  engine  then  steamed  away  to  the 
accompaniment  of  a veritable  fusilade 
of  bullets  and  stones. 

On  cross-examination,  by  ex-Con- 
gressman  Brumm,  it  was  brought  out 
that  the  two  men  under  arrest  for 
the  Beddell  murder  are  a butcher  and 
saloonkeeper.  It  was  also  shown  that 
two  English-speaking  miners  tried  to 
protect  Good  and  his  companion  on 
their  way  to  the  depot.  Good  admitted 
that  the  crowd  was  composed  mainly 
if  not  entirely  of  foreign-speaking  peo- 
ple. 

Mr.  Brumm  tried  to  make  it  appear 
that  the  day  in  question  tvas  close  to 
the  day  of  the  election  primaries  and 
that  it  was  election  and  not  strike  ex- 
citement which  animated  the  mob.  The 
witness  would  not  agree  with  Mr. 
Brumm  entirely. 


116 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Case  of  Charles  Carroll. 

Charles  Carroll,  of  Mahanoy  City,  a 
boss  at  the  Tunnel  Ridge  colliery  told 
of  a crowd  of  200  hooting  at  him  when 
he  left  the  stockade  and  appeared  at 
his  mother’s  house,  in  response  to  a 
message  that  she  was  dying.  His 
mother  was  dead  before  he  reached  the 
house.  So  many  threats  came  to  him 
orally  and  by  letter  that  he  did  not 
dare  go  to  his  mother’s  funeral.  He 
also  told  of  a mob  of  1200  following  and 
abusing  his  wife  and  children  when 
they  came  to  visit  him  at  the  stockade. 

Four  non-union  men  from  Gilberton 
testified  that  their  homes  were  dy- 
namited while  they  were  at  work. 
Morgan  Bevan’s  house  was  dynamited 
September  24,  between  1 and  2 o’clock 
in  the  morning.  Two  of  his  children 
were  ill  at  the  time,  one  of  them  very 
ill.  Fireboss  Richard  Parfet’s  wife  was 


rendered  unconscious  and  his  three 
children  blown  violently  against  the 
wall  by  the  explosion  at  his  house. 
Mike  Hoolihan  and  Harry  Godshall 
had  their  houses  badly  damaged  by 
the  explosions.  The  Bevan  and  God- 
shall houses  were  dynamited  on  the 
same  night. 

Thomas  Charlton,  a young  man  who 
got  permission  from  the  president  and 
secretary  of  the  St.  Clair  local  to  work 
during  the  strike  as  stable  boss  told 
that  he  was  corralled  by  a mob  of  200 
one  day  as  he  was  returning  from  work 
and  made  to  march  fifteen  miles 
through  four  towns. 

Alfred  Dry,  a miner  from  Minersville, 
who  would  not  quit  work  had  his  house 
blown  up  with  dynamite.  Three  men 
were  arrested  for  the  crime.  One  of 
the  trio  was  a milkman,  a neighbor 
of  Dry,  who  had  threatened  to  blow 
him  up. 


David  L.  Jenkins,  a Philadelphia  & 
Reading  coal  and  iron  policeman,  told 
of  a number  of  attempts  at  trainwreck- 
ing, during  the  strike.  June  30  ties 
were  placed  across  the  tracks  in  front 
of  a miners’  work  train  near  Pottsville, 
and  July  4,  spikes  were  laid  on  the 
rails  near  the  same  place. 

August  25,  a switch  at  Silver  Creek 
junction  was  tampered  with  and  left 
half  turned.  It  was  discovered  only  a 
few  minutes  before  the  New  York  ex- 
press came  along.  The  wooden  rail- 
road bridge  at  Silver  Creek  was  dy- 
namited September  19;  set  on  fire,  Sep- 
tember 20,  and  its  “props"  sawed  on 
September  22.  After  this  date  the 
bridge  was  guarded.  Thirty-three  rail- 
lengths  above  the  bridge,  the  railroad 
was  dynamited  the  night  after  guards 
were  placed  at  the  bridge. 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Jan.  S. 

[ ITrom  Tine  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  0.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  8. — The  principal 
feature  of  the  proceedings  before  the 
coal  strike  commission  today  was  the 
exception  taken  by  President  Mitchell 
to  a remark  made  by  Chairman  Gray 
that  he  would  like  to  see  the  miners’ 
union  come  up  out  of  the  mire  that  is 
around  the  baser  parts  of  it  into  the 
sunlight.  The  miners’  president  said 
the  union  should  not  be  indicted  unless 
a connection  could  be  shown  between 
it  and  acts  of  lawlessness.  The  head  of 
the  commission  replied  that  he  did  not 
wish  to  indict  the  organization,  but 
hoped  i't  would  disentangle  itself  en- 
tirely from  the  violence  and  lawless- 
ness committed  during  the  strike.  The 
incident  came  suddenly  while  a witness 
was  on  the  stand,  and  caused  quite  a 
stir  among  the  lawyers  on  both  sides 
of  the  controversy.  Outside  of  this,  the 
entire  day  was  taken  up  in  nearing  the 
stories  of  non-union  men  or  their  rela- 
tives of  alleged  persecution  during  the 
period  of  the  strike. 

The  Mitchell  incident  was  brought 
about  bv  Commissioner  Parker.  An- 
thony Ferguson,  of  Mahanoy  City,  out- 
side foreman  at  the  North  Mahanoy  col- 
liery of  the  Philadelphia  and  Reading 
Coal  and  Iron  company,  testified  that 
he  was  beaten  while  on  his  way  to 
work,  that  he  recognized  two  of  his  as- 
sailants as  union  men,  and  that  they 
were  prosecuted  and  convicted.  Mr. 
Parker  asked  the  witness  if  the  men 
were  expelled  from  the  union  for  what 
they  had  done,  but  the  foreman  did  not 
know.  Mr.  Mitchell  has  stared  on  the 
witness  stand  that  all  memoers  of  the 
union  found  guilty  of  crime  are  expelled 
from  the  union.  Noting  the  interest  the 
commission  took  in  Mr.  Parker’s  ques- 
tion, the  lawyers  for  the  non-union  men 
called  on  Terrence  Ginley,  a member  of 
Ihe  executive  board  of  the  union  in  the 
district  where  the  assault  was  com- 


mitted, for  the  information  desired. 
Ginley  said  he  did  not  know  whether 
the  local  union  to  which  the  men  be- 
longed took  any  action,  and  he  went  on 
to  give  a long  explanation  of  how  the 
local  unions  and  individual  strikers 
used  every  means  to  disperse  crowds 
and  help  maintain  the  peace.  The  ac- 
tions taken  by  the  local  unions,  he  said, 
was  principally  advisory.  He  told  of 
the  attempts  made  to  keep  tne  peace  at 
Shenandoah  before  the  big  riot  there, 
and  added  there  had  been  no  disturb- 
ance until  the  coal  and  iron  police  -were 
sent  to  that  place. 

Regarding  Discipline. 

Chairman  Gray  then  asked: 

“Do  you  wait  for  conviction  by  the 
civil  authorities  before  disciplining 
your  men?  Do  you  think  you  can  have 
effective  discipline  unless  you  make  in- 
vestigations yourself  and  bring  the 
men  up  and  punish  them  in  some  way? 
1 ask  you  as  a member  of  the  order, 
and  as  a man  who  would  be  glad  to 
see  your  order  come  up  out  of  the 
mire  and  the  clouds  that  are  around 
the  baser  parts  of  it,  into  the  sunlight 
and  into  the  air  of  free  government  and 
a free  country.” 

“If  it  is  proven  that  our  men  have 
committed  acts  of  violence,  there  is  no 
question  about  our  disciplining  them,” 
replied  the  witness. 

Then  followed  a discussion  over  the 
Shenandoah  riot  and  the  killing  of  a 
man,  and  in  reply  to  Mr.  Mitchell’s  re- 
mark that  it  was  not  the  miners  who 
did  it,  Chairman  Gray  said: 

“But  there  was  a crowd,  and  as  yet 
I have  heard  on  evidence  of  a disci- 
plining voice  in  that  mob.  No  man 
there  said:  ‘Shame  on  the  cowards.’  ” 
Mr.  Darrow — You  must  not  expect 
the  railroad  company  to  furnish  that. 
The  witness  said  the  union  would 


prove  that  union  men  tried  to  prevent 
the  riot,  to  which  Judge  Gray  replied 
he  hoped  so. 

There  was  a further  discussion  on 
thi  subject  and  then  Mr.  Mitchell  arose 
and  said  to  Chairman  Gray: 

“I  do  not  know  whether  I quite  un- 
derstood you  in  expressing  yourself  to 
the  witness  as  to  your  solicitude  for 
the  organization,  that  it  should  arise 
above  the  mire  or  that  part  of  it  should 
arise  above  the  mire.” 

Chairman  Gray:  "Perhaps  I may 

have  been  misunderstood.  It  was  not 
an  unfriendly  wish  that  was  expressed. 
I said  I hoped  it  would  lift  itself  out 
of  the  mire  and  of  the  conditions 
created  by  these  things  which  have 
been  testified  to,  around  its  baser 
parts.” 

Mr.  Mitchell  said  in  reply  that  while 
the  commission  is  going  to  determine 
all  the  questions  that  are  being  pre- 
sented here,  there  is  a greater  jury 
passing  upon  the  attitude  of  the 
strikers. 

‘ to  the  action  of  our  organization 
and  the  position  of  the  coal  operators,” 
he  said,  “there  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind 
tha t many  of  the  witnesses  are  brought 
here  and  do  not  come  as  witnesses 
ordinarily  do,  to  testify  against  the 
strikers  and  indirectly  against  the 
United  Mine  Workers.  It  does  Seem  to 
n;e  until  there  is  some  connection 
shown  be:'\ftn  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America  and  acts  of  lawlessness, 
the  organization  should  not  be  placed 
under  any  indictment  at  all.” 

Chairman  Gray  said  that  he  did  no’ 
wish  Mr.  Michell  to  understand  thn 
anything  he  said  indicted  the  organiza- 
tion. 

"1  did  hope,”  continued  the  commis- 
sioner. “that  it  would  disentangle  it- 
self from  these  scenes  of  violence  and 
lawlessness  with  which  the  strike  was 


attended.  They  may  have  been  exagger- 
ated as  you  contend.  I am  not  passing 
upon  that  now.  We  have  heard  isolated 
instances  of  outrage  which  we  must  all 
admit.  We  are  not  saying  that  the 
organization  is  responsible  for  every 
act  of  violence  and  we  only  wanted  to 
see  whether  the  organization  has  in- 
terested itself  in  maintaining  the  order 
which  you  have  advised,  and  whether 
it  has  disciplined  those  who  actually 
were  convicted  of  disorder.” 

Mr.  Mitchell  said  that  he  did  not 
know  that  any  member  of  the  union 
had  been  expelled,  and  added  that  un- 
til men  are  convicted  of  violation  of 
law,  the  organization  had  no  right  to 
expel  them  and  thus  prejudice  their 
case  before  the  trial  court.  Chairman 
Gray  said  that  Mr.  Mitchell’s  point 
was  well  taken  so  far  as  concerns  those 
under  indictment,  but  what  he  wanted 
to  know  was  whether  any  of  those 
men  were  ever  called  up  who  had  been 
notoriously  engaged  in  illegal  acts  and 
whether  they  were  subjected  to  disci- 
pline by  the  organization. 

This  ended  the  incident. 

Witness  Ginley  further  testified  that 
witnesses  were  averse  to  coming  before 
the  commission  because  they  were 
afraid  of  losing  their  positions.  He  told 
of  one  instance  where  a man  was  re- 
fused work  because  he  appeared  before 
the  arbitrators,  and  the  commission 
made  a note  of  it  and , said  an  investi- 
gation would  be  made.  The  witness,  in 
reply  to  Commissioner  Wright,  said 
that  many  of  the  coal  and  iron  police 
were  of  bad  character.  Some  had  served 
time  in  jail  and  were  hired  as  guards 
as  soon  as  liberated  from  prison. 

The  commissioners  and  the  lawyers 
for  the  miners  became  involved  in  a 
discussion  as  to  whether  an  organiza- 
tion had  a right  to  expel  a man  foT 
committing  a crime.  Mr.  Darrow 
thought  no  organization  should  throw 
a man  any  more  than  a Christian 
church.  Daniel  J.  McCarthy,  another 
lawyer  for  the  miners,  said  there  was 
no  law  that  would  warrant  the  union 
expelling  a man  for  committing  a mis- 
demeanor. He  was  stopped  by  Chair- 
man Gray,  who  said: 

Face  to  Face  with  Facts. 

“We  are  not  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America,  and  we  perhaps  have 
no  right  to  criticize  them,  but  the  com- 
mission, as  long  as  they  are  brought 
face  to  face  with  that,  think  differently 
about  it.” 

Mr.  Mitchell  was  called  to  the  stand 
and  testified  that  the  three  men  who 
were  convicted  of  killing  a man  at  Nan- 
ticoke  were  not  members  of  the  union 
when  they  committed  the  crime.  They 
were  ex-members  because  they  had 
failed  to  pay  their  dues.  In  reply  to  a 
question,  Mr.  Mitchell  said  the  union 
had  spent  nearly  $400,000  in  relieving  the 
distress  among  the  30,000  to  40,000  strik- 
ers who  were  not  members  of  the  union. 

The  testimony  given  today  was  along 
the  same  line  as  that  presented  yester- 
day. Many  witnesses  told  of  personal 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

attacks  upon  them,  the  dynamiting  of 
their  houses,  destruction  of  property  by 
strikers  and  expulsion  of  non-union 
men  from  societies. 

The  commission  requested  the  law- 
yers for  the  non-union  men  to  curtail 
the  number  of  witnesses  as  much  as 
possible,  to  which  they  replied  they 
would.  They  expect  to  place  the  Na- 
tional Guard  officers  on  the  stand  to- 
morrow. The  lawyers  for  the  miners 
called  the  attention  of  the  commission 
to  the  fact  that  President  Baer  and 
John  Markle  told  President  Roosevelt 
that  twenty-one  murders  were  com- 
mitted during  the  strike,  and  they 
wanted  the  operators  to  prove  the  as- 
sertion. Chairman  Gray  said  the  com- 
mission also  wanted  them  to  prove  the 
statement. 

Mr.  Torrey’s  Statement. 

James  H.  Torrey,  of  Scranton,  for  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company,  stated 
at  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  ses- 
sion that  the  order  of  business  after 
the  non-union  men  had  finished  their 
case  was  for  the  company  he  repre- 
sents to  present  its  side  of  the  contro- 
versy. He  expected  that  the  non-union 
men  would  take  up  the  remainder  of 
the  week,  and  as  the  commission  had 
asked  them  to  finish  tomorrow,  he 
could  not  promise  that  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company  would  be  ready 
to  go  on. 

Chairman  Gray  said  that  the  com- 
mission would  see  later  what  it  could 
do. 

Anothny  Kosavich,  of  Wilkes-Barre 
township,  the  first  witness  of  the  af- 
ternoon session,  said  he  worked  during 
the  strike,  timbering.  His  cow,  he 
said,  was  killed,  stable  burned  and 
ether  outrages  committed  on  him  and 
his  property. 

Lawrence  Grablowski,  of  Mill  Creek, 
who  also  worked  during  the  strike,  said 
his  house  was  attacked  and  children 
threatened  with  death.  He  was  ex- 
pelled from  a.  religious  society,  he  said, 
because  he  did  not  strike. 

George  W.  Hartlein,  secretary  of 
District  No.  9,  was  called  by  the 
miners'  lawyers,  and  denied  that  Miles 
Dougherty.  national  board  member 
from  the  Ninth  district,  used  vile  lan- 
guage attributed  to  him  by  Thomas  R. 
Powell,  a witness  at  the  mornig  ses- 
sion. Powell  said  that  Dougherty  told 
him  if  he  went  to  work  he  would  not 
come  back  alive.  Hartlein  also  denied 
that  Dougherty  said  this. 

Miles  Dougherty  also  was  called  and 
denied  having  used  such  language. 
Dougherty  said  that  he  (himself)  was 
for  years  blacklisted  by  the  Reading 
company  for  no  reason  known  him. 

John  Foote,  of  Miner’s  Mills,  an  en- 
gineer, said  that  while  he  was  at  work 
three  members  of  the  union  came  to  his 
house  and  told  his  wife  that  if  he  did 
not  quit  work  he  would  be  killed,  and  if 
he  did  not  come  home,  the  wife  and 
children  would  be  killed.  He  said  he 
was  hung  in  effigy.  He  was  called  a 


117 

“scab”  while  attending  the  funeral  of 
his  brother-in-law. 

Driven  from  a Dace  Mill. 

Samuel  Scott,  of  Parsons,  a fireman 
employed  by  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
company,  said  that  one  day  while  on 
his  way  to  work  he  was  struck  twenty- 
five  times  with  stones.  He  was  also 
badly  beaten.  A committee  of  the 
miners'  union,  he  said,  called  at  the 
big-  lace  mill  in  Wilkes-Barre  and  noti- 
fied the  committee  of  union  employes 
in  the  lace  mill  that  his  daughter,  aged 
21  years,  should  not  be  permitted  to 
work,  because  her  father  did  not  go  out 
on  strike.  The  committee  called  on  the 
manager  of  the  mill,  and  he  advised 
her  to  go  home.  The  manager  paid  her 
salary  while  she  was  at  home.  Scott 
belonged  to  the  Brotherhood  of  the 
Union,  and  members  of  that  organiza- 
tion charged  him  with  working  against 
the  best  interests  of  his  fellow-men  by 
remaining  at  work  during  the  strike. 
Those  who  made  the  charge  were  union 
men.  He  was  fined  $50,  but  did  not  pay 
it,  and  was  dropped  from  the  society. 

Anthony  Soboloski,  Frank  Hentz  and 
John  Ulravicz,  all  of  Shenandoah,  said 
they  worked  during  the  strike  and  that 
their  houses  were  dynamited. 

Charles  A.  Portland,  of  Mahanoy  City, 
told  of  his  father’s  house  being  blown 
up  with  dynamite,  and  that  sixteen 
sticks  of  the  high  explosive  were  found 
in  the  cellar  with  a fuse  attached, 
which  had  been  partly  burned. 

Andrew  Nuak,  of  Plymouth,  an  ash- 
wheeler, was  attacked  by  nearly  a hun- 
dred men,  he  testified,  and  sustained  a 
fracture  of  two  ribs. 

The  last  witness  of  the  day  was  Law- 
rence Jenkins,  of  Parsons,  who  was  a 
deputy  sheriff  during  the  strike  and 
was  stationed  at  Wilkes-Barre.  He  told 
in  detail  all  the  places  he  was  sent  to 
during  the  strike  to  suppress  trouble, 
and  was  still  on  the  stand  when  ad- 
journment was  taken  at  4.30  o’clock, 
until  10  a.  m.  tomorrow. 


Special  from  a Staff  Corespondent. 

Philadelphia,  Jan.  8.— Several  times 
during  the  progress  of  the  hearings, 
members  of  the  commission,  particu- 
larly Judge  Gray  and  Mr.  Parker,  have 
inquired  if  the  miners’  union  had  done 
anything  to  discipline  members  who 
participated  in  strike  disorders.  The 
union’s  representatives,  following  the 
idea  expressed  by  President  Mitchell 
early  in  the  sessions,  invariably  made 
answer  that  it  was  not  fair  or  expe- 
dient for  the  union  to  pass  upon  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  a member  charged 
with  a breach  of  the  peace,  as  it  would 
have  a tendency  to  prejudice  his  case 
when  it  came  up  in  court. 

At  this  morning’s  session,  Anthony 
Ferguson,  a mine  foreman  for  the 
Philadelphia  and  Reading  company  at 
Mahanoy  City,  testified  to  having  been 
assaulted  by  two  union  men  and  that 
his  assailants  were  convicted  in  quar- 
ter sessions  court  last  November.  Com- 
missioner Parker  at  once  asked  if  the 


lis 

union  had  expelled  or  in  any  other  way 
sought  to  discipline  these  men.  This 
provoked  a lengthy  and  one  of  the  most 
interesting  and  significant  of  the  many 
discussions  that  have  been  partici- 
pated in  by  commissioners  and  attor- 
neys. Judge  Gray  and  President  Mit- 
chell took  the  leading  parts. 

To  have  Commissioner  Parker’s  in- 
quiry answered,  Attorneys  O’Brien  and 
Lenahan,  counsel  for  the  non-union 
men,  called  to  the  stand  Terrence  Gin- 
ley,  of  Girardsville,  executive  board 
member  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
for  the  Ninth  district,  in  which  Ma- 
hanoy  City  is  located. 

Mr.  Lenahan  asked  him  if  the  Ma- 
hanoy  local  had  taken  any  action  in 
the  way  of  disciplining  the  two  con- 
victed men.  Mr.  Ginley  said  he  did 
not  know  that  it  had.  He  added,  how- 
ever, that  the  union  and  all  its  officers 
had  always  taken  a firm  stand  against 
violence  and  advised  the  strikers  to 
keep  the  peace,  urging  upon  them  the 
wisdom  of  President  Mitchell’s  oft-re- 
peated declaration  that  the  worst 
enemy  of  their  cause  was  the  one 
among  them  who  violated  the  laws  of 
the  land. 

Judge  Gray  interrupted  the  witness 
several  times  to  repeat  Commissioner 
Parker’s  question  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  union  did  anything  to  discurage 
violence  other  than  advising  against  it. 
The  witness  told  of  peace  committees 
being  appointed  to  co-operate  with  the 
officers  of  the  law  in  preventing  and 
suppressing  disorder,  and  detailed  an 
instance  in  Shenandoah,  where  he  per- 
sonally went  with  the  burgess  to  deal 
with  a crowd  of  1,000,  “mostly  boys,” 
and  had  the  boys  cut  down  a number 
of  effigies,  around  which  the  crowd 
had  congregated.  He  also  told  of  a 
compact  made  with  the  burgess  to  sup- 
ply peace  committees,  permanently  to 
assist  in  preserving  order,  on  condition 
that  no  armed  men  would  be  permitted 
to  be  brought  into  the  town. 

None  Disciplined  for  Lawlessness. 

Again  Judge  Gray  repeated  the  query 
as  to  whether  or  not  the  union,  on  any 
occasion,  had  done  aything  to  disci- 
pline members,  by  dismissal,  suspen- 
sion or  the  like,  for  “treating  with 
contempt”  the  union’s  advice  that  the 
law  be  observed,  and  thereby  making 
themselves  the  “worst  enemies  of  the 
cause.”  The  witness  could  give  no  in- 
stance of  any  such  action  on  the  par  t 
of  the  union.  He  added  that  it  would 
be  found  that  the  men  who  disregarded 
the  union’s  advice  were  either  never 
members  of  the  union  or  else  members 
who  had  lost  their  standing  by  non- 
payment of  dues. 

Judge  Gray  expressed  a disinclina- 
tion to  accept  this  as  wholly  covering 
the  case.  He  would  not  agree  that  it 
was  not  possible  that,  at  least,  in  some 
of  the  crowds  somewhere  during  some 
period  of  the  strike,  there  were  mem- 
bers of  the  union,  who,  if  they  did  not 
actually  strike  blows  or  call  names, 


t»R0CEEDlN6S  OE  THE  ANTHRACITE 

were  notoriously  participating  in  the 
disorder  by  being  a member  of  the 
crowd  and  not  doing  what  they  could 
to  prevent  disorder.  When  a man  goes 
along  with  a mob  and  does  not  protest 
against  the  unlawful  conduct  of  the 
mob,  the  judge  averred,  he  is  respon- 
sible, as  an  accomplice,  in  anything 
any  one  in  the  mob  does.  To  illustrate 
his  meaning,  Judge  Gray  remarked 
that  he  had  yet  to  hear  from  any  source 
that  one  man  in  all  that  great  crowrd 
which  was  congregated  on  the  spot 
where  Bedell  was  murdered,  as  much 
as  raised  his  voice  to  cry  shame  on 
the  cowards  committing  the  assault. 

Mr.  Ginley  protested  that  Draughts- 
man Good,  one  of  the  non-union  wit- 
nesses, only  yesterday  testified  that  on 
the  night  of  the  Shenandoah  riot,  in  the 
fracas  which  preceded  the  killing  of 
Bedell,  two  union  men  tried  to  protect 
him  and  his  companions  as  they  were 
fighting  their  way  to  the  shelter  of  the 
depot. 

“I  want  to  hear  of  your  organization 
doing  just  that  sort  of  thing,”  said  the 
judge. 

Reverting  to  the  case  of  the  two 
union  men  convicted  of  assault  and 
battery,  Judge  Gray  asked  Mr.  Ginley 
if  he  had  taken  the  trouble  to  investi- 
gate as  to  whether  the  union  at  Ma- 
hanoy  City  had  done  anything  to  con- 
demn their  contempt  of  its  officers’  ad- 
vice. Mr.  Ginley  replied  that  he  had 
not  had  time,  as  yet,  to  do  so.  Com- 
missioner Parker  requested  Mr.  Ginley 
to  take  time  to  make  such  an  investi- 
gation and  let  the  commission  know 
the  result. 

Attorney  O’Brien  sought  to  secure 
from  the  witness  affirmation  of  a de- 
claration to  the  effect  that  union  offi- 
cials looked  up  bail  for  the  accused 
men,  hired  lawyers  to  defend  them,  and 
after  their  conviction  sought  to  have 
the  court  give  them  a light  sentence. 
Mr.  Ginley  had  no  personal  knowledge 
of  this,  but  Attorney  Brumm,  of  coun- 
sel for  the  miners,  who  defended  the 
two  men  in  question,  made  a state- 
ment that  it  was  true  that  the  miners’ 
union  interested  itself  in  securing  len- 
iency for  them,  but  only  did  so  after 
becoming  satisfied  that  they  had  been 
convicted  as  a result  of  mistaken  iden- 
tity. 

Mr.  Darrow  Would  Be  Christian- 

Like. 

Here  Mr.  Darrow  declared  that  if 
the  union  did  all  the  things  implied 
by  Mr.  O’Brien’s  questions,  he  per- 
sonally would  uphold  it  in  what  it 
had  done.  He  further  declared  he 
would  not  favor  the  expulsion  of  union 
men  who  were  convicted  of  a crime. 
Rather,  he  said,  it  would  be  the  more 
Christian-like  to  keep  them  in  associa- 
tions that  would  tend  to  redeem  them. 
No  Christian  church  or  a political  par- 
ty , said  Mr.  Darrow,  would  rightly  ex- 
j.  el  a member  for  some  such  act  as 
these  men  were  convicted  of.  The 
Plymouth  church,  in  Brooklyn,  he 


pointed  out,  kept  a Very  prominent  di- 
vine on  its  rolls,  even  while  he  was  in 
the  penitentiary. 

President  Mitchell  rose  to  his  feet 
and  advanced  to  the  front  of  the  bench, 
where  were  gathered  the  lawyers  par- 
ticipating in  the  discussion,  just  as  soon 
as  the  discussion  began.  Once  or  twice 
he  started  to  say  something,  but  his 
low  tones  did  not  command  attention, 
and  someone  else  would  "get  the  floor.” 
When  all  had  had  their  say,  Mr.  Mit- 
chell secured  Chairman  Gray’s  notice 
and  proceeded  to  say  a few  things 
which  the  lawyers  on  his  side  had  left 
unsaid. 

In  some  comments  about  the  union 
ana  lawlessness  Judge  Gray  had  made 
a remark  which  Mr.  Mitchell  misinter- 
preted to  mean  that  the  judge  believed 
the  union  to  be  responsible  for  some 
of  the  lawlessness  by  not  having  suc- 
ceeded in  preventing  it  to  a greater  de- 
gree than  it  did.  To  this  Mr.  Mitchell 
took  exception,  saying  that  unless  some 
connection  was  shown  between  the 
union  and  the  committing  of  acts  of 
lawlessness,  it  was  not  fair  to  hold  the 
union  responsible.  Judge  Gray  as- 
sured Mr.  Mitchell  he  was  not  charg- 
ing the  union  with  responsibility  for 
the  lawlessness.  He  had  been  misin- 
terpreted, he  said.  What  he  did  say 
was  that  he,  with  every  other  well- 
wisher  of  the  union,  hoped  it  would  be 
above  such  a thing. 

“I  expressed  the  hope  that  the  union 
would  disentangle  itself  from  any  such 
condition,”  said  the  judge.  “We  have 
heard  of  some  isolated  instances,  let 
us  say,  of  union  men  being  participants 
in  strike  disorders.  Possibly  this  was 
to  be  expected  when  you  consider  147,- 
000  men  being  in  idleness.” 

Mr.  Mitchell’s  Explanation. 

Judge  Gray  put  to  Mr.  Mitchell  the 
question  as  to  what  the  union  had 
done  to  discipline  members  who  en- 
gaged in  lawlessness.  Mr.  Mitchell's 
reply  was  in  line  with  previous  answers 
to  the  same  question,  that  is,  that  until 
•l  man  is  convicted  it  would  be  unfair 
to  him  to  have  the  union  prejudice  his 
case  in  court  by  passing  judgment  on 
him. 

This  was  true  as  to  individuals.  Judge 
Gray  agreed,  but,  he  wanted  to  know 
what  if  anything  had  ever  been  done 
to  discipline  members  of  the  union  who 
were  notoriously  known  to  the  union 
to  have  beer,  in  crowds  which  commit- 
ted violence,  and  who  would  not  be 
charged  in  a court  of  justice  with  any 
crime.  Mr.  Michell  would  not  agree 
rhat  the  union  had  cognizance  of  any 
such  cases. 

At  this  juncture.  Board  Member 
Ginley  who  was  still  sitting  in  the  wit- 
ness box  informed  the  court  that  James 
Clark,  of  Ashland,  who  testified  for  the 
miners  before  the  commission  in  Scran- 
ton had  been  refused  his  place  in  the 
Bast  colliery,  of  the  Philadelphia  auid 
Beading  company.  Judge  Gray  evi- 
denced much  concern  about  this  and 


took  notes  of  it,  saying:  “We  will  look 

into  this.” 

Attorney  Ltnaliaii  conferred  with 
representatives  ot  the  Philadelphia  & 
Reading  company,  and  then  informed 
the  commission  it  would  be  shown  that 
Clark’s  discharge  was  on  other  grounds 
altogether. 

The  disci: ssion  was  concluded  with  an 
affirmative  answer  by  Mr.  Darrow  to 
Commissioner  Watkins’  question  as  to 
whether  or  not  Mr.  Darrow’s  idea  of 
retaining  in  the  union  a man  guilty  of 
strike  lawlessness  would  be  consistent 
with  President  Mitchell’s  utterances. 

The  President  on  the  Stand. 

There  was  a buzz  of  low  voices  and 
a general  craning  of  necks  followed  by 
a peifect  silence  as  Attorney  Lenahan 
called  "John  Mitchell.”  Mr.  Lenahan 
explained  he  wanted  to  have  Mr.  Mit- 
chell take  the  stand  for  further  cross- 
examination.  Mr.  Mitchell  unhesitat- 
ingly took  the  chair  vacated  by  Board 
Member  Ginley. 

Mr.  Benahan  asked  Mr.  Michell  if  it 
was  not  true  that  at  the  Scranton  ses- 
sion while  a witness  he  agreed  to  in- 
vestigate and  inform  the  commission 
as  to  whether  or  not  the  men  who 
niurctiea  James  Sweeney  at  the  Bliss 
coiiiery  were  members  of  the  union. 
Mr.  Mitchell  replied  that  this  was  true, 
that  he  had  investigated,  and  that  he 
found  they  were  not  members.  They 
had  lost  their  membership,  he  explain- 
ed, by  non-payment  of  dues,  not  having 
paid  any  dues  since  April.  Mr.  Lena- 
han  secured  from  Mr.  Mitchell  an  ad- 
mission that  no  member  was  expected 
or  permitted  to  pay  dues  in  April  or 
the  other  strike  months.  Mr.  Mitchell, 
however,  exp'ained  that  they  were  in 
arrears  in  April.  Mr.  Lenahan  kept 
hammering  away  on  this  point  and 
finally  succeeded  in  establishing  that 
they  were  not  three  months  in  arrears 
in  April. 

He  also  tried  to  show  that  one  of  the 
men  who  pleaded  guilty  to  the  killing 
was  a member  of  the  relief  committee. 
Mr.  Mitchell  did  not  know  anything 
about  that.  It  was  possible,  though, 
he  said,  as  there  were  30,000  or  40,000 
non-union  men  on  strike  receiving  re- 
lief from  the  union.  Mr.  Lenahan 
challenged  Mr.  Mitchell  to  give  him  the 
name  of  one  non-union  man  who  had 
received  a single  cent  of  strike  relief 
from  the  union.  Mr.  Mitchell  met  the 
challenge  by  declaring  he  could  furnish 
30,000  names  of  non-union  men  to  whom 
the  union  had  given  between  $300,000 
and  $400,000.  Mr.  Lenahan  didn’t  press 
him  to  present  the  list. 

At  the  close  of  the  morning  session, 
Judge  Gray  announced  to  Mr.  Lena- 
han and  Mr.  O’Brien  that  the  com- 
mission had  heard  quite  enough  from 
their  side  to  Inform  them  of  the  ex- 
perience of  the  non-union  men  during 
the  strike  and  suggested  that  they  en- 
deavor to  close  their  case  before  the 
dav  ended. 

President  Mitchell  addressed  the 
chairman  and  said: 

“Your  honor,  when  the  coal  operators 


Mine  strike  commission 

met  President  Roosevelt,  Messrs.  Mar- 
kle  and  Baer  told  him  that  the  United 
Mine  Workers’  had  committed  twenty- 
four  murders  during  the  strike.  If  Mr. 
Lenahan  or  the  other  lawyers  have 
any  evidence  to  this  effect,  I ask  you  to 
direct  them  to  produce  it.  So  far  there 
has  been  no  testimony  to  substantiate 
this  allegation.  It  ought  to  be  shown 
whether  or  not  Messrs.  Markle  and 
Baer  told  the  truth  to  the  president.” 

Judge  Gray  said  the  commission  did 
not  want  to  shut  out  any  evidence  that 
was  essential,  but  unless  the  non-union 
men  had  something  to  offer  about  more 
serious  affairs  than  had  been  recounted, 
the  commission  would  not  care  to  hear 
anything  more  from  them. 

Mr.  Lenahan  said  they  had  196  more 
witnesses  but  he  would  act  on  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  commission  and  present 
only  the  most  important  ones.  He 
could  finish  by  tomorrow  he  said. 

Brigadier  General  Gobin  he  said 
would  be  put  on  the  stand  tomorrow 
to  tell  generally  of  the  disorder  in  the 
whole  field.  Colonel  Dougherty  of  the 
Ninth  regiment  and  Colonel  Clements 
of  the  Twelfth  will  also  go  on  the  stand. 
Other  national  guard  commanders  have 
been  invited  to  appear  and  testify,  but 
these  three  are  the  only  ones  who  have 
come. 

The  testimony  today  was  from  non- 
union men  from  the  Schuylkill  region 
and  a few  from  Delaware  and  Hudson 
collieries.  There  were  times  when  not 
more  than  one  or  two  of  the  commis- 
sioners listened  with  any  show  of  at- 
tention to  the  cumulative  testimony. 
When  something  new  was  being  offered 
they  gave  it  attention.  Once  during  the 
afternoon  Bishop  Spalding  and  Mr. 
Watkins  withdrew  to  the  most  remote 
part  of  the  bench  where  they  could  not 
hear  the  testimony  and  had  a chat 
while  two  or  three  uninteresting  wit- 
nesses told  the  oft-told  story  of  being 
kicked  and  cuffed  and  called  names  and 
the  like. 

A Silver  Creek  Episode. 

Mrs.  Lillie  Stephenson,  of  Silver 
Creek,  was  the  first  witness  of  the  day. 
Her  husband  worked  during  the  strike 
and  as  a result  both  of  them  were  sub- 
jected to  continual  abuse.  On  Sunday, 
September  14,  she  and  her  husband, 
with  his  brother  and  sister-in-law  from 
St.  Clair,  were  about  to  take  a trolley 
car  to  St.  Clair  from  Silver  Creek,  when 
a crowd  of  foreigners  set  upon  them 
and  severely  beat  the  witness  and  her 
husband.  The  latter  sustained  concus- 
sion of  the  brain  and  internal  injuries. 
The  witness  was  attacked  after  she 
threw  a stone  at  a man  who  was  club- 
bing her  husband.  A big  man  pinioned 
her  arms,  and  while  thus  held  helpless 
she  was  pelted  with  large  stones. 

Mrs.  Robert  Robinson,  of  Tower  City, 
fervidly  recounted  the  sorrows  she  suf- 
fered because  her  husband  went  back 
to  work  as  an  engineer  at  one  of  the 
Reading  collieries.  Her  house  was  dyna- 
mited and  the  whole  front  of  it  wrecked. 
Every  night  stones  were  thrown  against 


119 

the  house.  One  day,  a crowd  surround- 
ed the  house  and  called  her  vile  names. 
When  they  became  very  disorderly,  she 
went  into  the  house,  got  an  unloaded 
shotgun,  re-appeared,  and  the  crowd 
dispersed. 

On  another  occasion  a crowd  of  400 
came  to  her  home  with  a brass  band 
and  serenaded  her.  The  musical  num- 
bers were  interspersed  witn  cat-calls, 
curses  and  union  songs.  Her  sister's 
husband,  James  Lewis,  she  declared, 
was  the  leader  of  the  mob.  From  the 
time  she  mentioned  her  brother-in-law’s 
name  until  she  left  the  stand,  she  de- 
voted pretty  much  all  her  attention  to 
telling  how  this  brother-in-law  pestered 
her.  On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Dar- 
row brought  out  the  admission  that 
the  witness  and  her  brother-in-law  were 
at  no  time  very  friendly. 

No  Relief;  Assaulted  for  Working. 

Henry  Curnow,  a stationary  en- 
gineer, from  Hazleton,  was  sick  when 
the  strike  started,  and  recovered  after 
a month  or  so  and  sought  assistance 
from  the  union  relief  committee.  After 
being  refused  three  times,  he  decided 
to  go  to  work.  August  26,  three  days 
after  resuming  work,  while  on  his  way 
to  the  mine,  at  4 o’clock  in  the  morn- 
ing, he  was  held  up  by  pickets  and 
badly  battered.  While  one  man  throt- 
tled him,  others  beat  him.  He  was  ren- 
dered unconscious  and  fell  to  the 
ground.  When  he  recovered  conscious- 
ness and  regained  his  feet,  the  crowd 
was  still  about  him.  He  was  wiping 
his  face  of  blood  and  dirt  when  he  was 
hit  between  the  eyes  by  a fist,  which  he 
thinks  must  have  worn  steel  knuckles. 

"You  didn’t  think  you  were  living  in 
a free  country,  about  that  time,  did 
you?”  remarked  Judge  Gray. 

"1  certainly  didn’t,”  said  Curnow. 

The  witness  exhibited  a large  depres- 
sion where  the  nose  and  forehead  meet, 
and  averred  it  was  the  result  of  the 
blow.  His  eyesight  has  been  perma- 
nently impaired,  and  he  Is  undergoing 
treatment  by  a celebrated  Philadelphia 
oculist. 

Michael  Weldon,  of  Mahanoy  City, 
continued  to  work  during  the  strike, 
and  his  house  was  dynamited,  his  chil- 
dren insulted  and  he,  himselr,  subjected 
to  various  abuses. 

Thomas  Feeley,  a Philadelphia  and 
Reading  fireboss,  from  St.  Nicholas,  tes- 
tified that  on  August  16,  while  bound  for 
work  on  a trolley  car,  he  was  attacked 
by  six  men,  who  held  up  the  car,  and 
without  the  first  sign  of  protest  from 
the  conductor  or  motorman  he  was 
dragged  to  the  platform  and  thrown 
bodily  down  a steep  embankment.  He 
was  picked  up,  unconscious,  by  some 
stranger,  placed  on  the  car  and  con- 
veyed to  his  home,  where  he  received 
medical  attention. 

The  witness  could  not  tell  the  nation- 
ality of  his  assailants.  Mr.  Brumm 
pressed  him  to  attempt  it,  and  finally 
the  witness  said  they  were  Americans. 

“Were  they  Americans  or  foreign- 
Americans?”  inquired  Mr.  Brumm. 


120 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


“What  kind  of  an  American  is  a 
foreign- American?”  asked  Attorney 
O’Brien. 

“The  kind  of  an  American  you  are, 
as  I take  it,”  replied  Mr.  Brumm.  “Do 
you  know  what  kind  of  an  American 
you  are,  yourself?” 

“Yes,  the  right  kind,”  came  back 
quickly,  at  which  everybody,  including 
Mr.  Brumm,  laughed  heartily. 

Threatened  by  Officials. 

Thomas  R.  Powell,  a fireboss  from  St. 
Nicholas,  testified  that  Secretary 
George  Hartlein  and  National  Board 
Member  Myles  Dougherty,  of  the  Ninth 
district,  accosted  him  at  the  railroad 
station  in  Gilberton,  as  he  was  return- 
ing from  work,  and  tried  to  intimidate 
him.  He  said  that  Dougherty  told  him 
if  he  returned  to  work  in  tne  morning 
he  would  not  “come  back  alive.” 

National  Board  Member  Dougherty 
and  Secretary  Hartlein  were  called  to 
the  stand  by  Mr.  Darrow  to  deny  Mr. 
Powell’s  statement,  which  they  did.  No 
threat  whatever  was  made  by  either  of 
them,  they  declared. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Lenahan 
gained  an  admission  from  Mr.  Hartlein 
that  he  advised  the  Gilberton  strikers 
to  try  to  call  out  the  men  working  at 
the  Gilbert  water  shaft,  which  drains 
three  large  collieries,  and  which,  if  it 
ceased  operations,  would  be  drowned. 
Mr.  Hartlein  would  not  deny  that  he 
had  tried  to  call  out  the  stable  bosses 
who  feed  the  mules. 

Mr.  Dougherty  also  admitted,  on 
cross-examination,  that  he  tried  to  get 
the  men  at  the  Gilbert  water  shaft  to 
Join  the  strikers,  and  that  he  knew  if 
the  shaft  was  not  kept  in  operation  the 
mines  would  be  flooded. 

“If  the  operators  were  willing  to  flood 
their  mines  rather  than  give  their  steam 
men  a decent  workday,  you  were  satis- 
fied they  should  do  it,  were  you  not?” 
inquired  Mr.  Darrow,  with  a show  of 
vehemence. 

“I  certainly  was,”  answered  the  wit- 
ness. 

"And  I,  certainly,  trust  you  would,” 
rejoined  Mr.  Darrow. 

In  response  to  a question  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row, suggested  by  President  Mitchell, 
Mr.  Dougherty  averred  that  he  has 
been  unable  to  work  in  the  mines  since 
1887,  because  of  his  being  blacklisted. 
He  narrated  his  experiences  while  look- 
ing for  work,  to  prove  his  allegation. 
He  also  told  of  Mine  Inspector  Edward 
Brennan  offering  himself  and  President 
Pahy  positions  as  bosses  in  different 
parts  of  the  field,  and  of  a mine  boss 
telling  him  he  would  be  taken  care  of 
if  he  stopped  organizing  the  miners. 

Aged  Man  Assaulted. 

Thomas  Healey,  an  aged  miner,  of 
Shenandoah,  whose  offense  was  being 
the  father  of  an  adult  son  who  worked 
during  the  strike,  testfied  tnat  he  was 
beaten  and  shot  at  by  a gang  of  for- 
eigners. His  vocal  organs  and  hearing, 


he  declared,  were  permanently  impaired 
as  a result  of  his  injuries. 

Mrs.  Nellie  Foreman,  of  Tower  City, 
whose  husband  worked  during  the 
strike,  told  that  their  barn  was  blown 
up  by  dynamite. 

Joseph  A.  Post,  of  Port  Carbon,  told 
of  the  finding  of  ninety-six  sticks  of 
dynamite  underneath  a Philadelphia 
and  Reading  railroad  bridge  at  Silver 
Creek. 

Patrick  McCullough,  of  St.  Clair,  in- 
side foreman  at  a Reading  colliery,  told 
of  being  beaten  by  three  union  men. 
He  sail  he  had  to  go  armed  after  that, 
even  to  church. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  the  witness  if  he 
prosecuted  the  men  who  assaulted  him. 
The  witness  replied:  “I  nad  one  of 

them  arrested,  but  I don’t  know  what 
became  of  the  case.  There  is  no  justice 
for  us  scabs  in  Schuylkill  county.  The 
judges  are  all  right,  but  you  can  t get 
s jury  to  convict  i man  for  assaulting 
a scab.” 

John  Foote,  of  Shenandoah,  com- 
plained that  strikers  killed  his  cow 
after  he  refused  to  quit  work. 

Laurence  Vonosky,  W'ho  worked  at 
Miners’  Mills  during  the  strike,  found 
his  cow  missing  one  Friday  evening. 
The  next  Monday  morning  he  found 
the  cow  in  the  woods,  tethered  to  a 
tree,  so  that  it  could  not  graze.  His 
ducks  were  stolen,  his  house  frequently 
attacked,  and  two  societies,  St.  Jos- 
eph’s Polish  Catholic  society  and  the 
National  Polish  Alliance,  expelled  him 
from  membership. 

Cow  Poisoned. 

John  Foote,  of  Miners’  Mills,  an  engi- 
neer for  the  Delaware  and  Hudson, 
would  not  join  the  strikers.  His  cow 
was  poisoned  June  7.  On  June  19, 
while  attending  the  funeral  of  his  wife’s 
mother,  he  was  called  “scab.”  A 
driver  for  Anthony  Ruddy,  his  store- 
keeper, was  threatened  with  a coat  of 
tar  and  feathers  when  he  was  deliver- 
ing goods  to  Foote’s  home,  and  there- 
fore Mr.  Ruddy  himself  had  to  make 
the  deliveries. 

William  Scott,  of  Parsons,  a Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  engineer,  wouldn’t 
quit  work  and  had  the  usual  exper- 
iences with  stone-throwers,  jeerers 
and  hooters.  Once  he  was  given  a 
brutal  beating  and  still  carries  the 
scars.  A committee  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  tried  to  have  his  daugh- 
ter discharged  from  the  lace  facto,  y 
and  another  committee  of  the  same  or- 
ganization had  him  expelled  from  a fra- 
ternal and  beneficial  society. 

Anthony  Sloboski,  of  Shenandoah,  a 
Philadelphia  and  Reading  laborer,  came 
home  from  work  October  7 and  found 
that  dynamite  had  been  exploded  on 
the  steps  leading  to  his  front  porch. 

Charles  A.  Portland,  a rock  contrac- 
tor of  Mahanoy  City,  told  that  dyna- 
mite was  exploded  inside  his  father’s 
house  on  November  23,  after  the  strike 
ended.  He  found  sixteen  sticks  of  dy- 


namite in  his  own  cellar,  with  the  at- 
tached fuse  burned  to  within  a short 
distance  of  the  percussion  cap,  some 
weeks  before.  It  evidently  had  acci- 
dentally become  extinguished.  There 
were  men  boarding  with  his  father  who 
were  accused  of  having  worked  during 
the  strike,  and  the  witness  himself 
plead  guilty  of  having  worked  twro  days 
in  July. 

Ex-Congressman  Brumm  asked  the 
witness:  “Were  any  of  the  ‘scabs’  in 

the  house  at  the  time?” 

“Do  you  use  that  term  as  having 
been  grafted  into  the  English  lan- 
guage?' ’ inquired  Judge  Gray.  “It 
would  be  preferrable,  I take  it,  to  say 
those  ‘so-called  scabs.’  ” 

Mr.  Brumm  agreed  with  the  judge’s 
view  of  the  matter. 

Andrew'  Vak,  of  Plymouth,  haul  d 
ashes  from  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
colliery.  Five  broken  ribs  and  a punc- 
tured lung  were  the  result. 

Deputy  Sheriff  Jenkins,  of  Luzerne 
county,  described  various  acts  of  law- 
lessness he  had  been  called  to  deal  with 
during  the  strike.  The  Warnke  wash- 
ery  riot,  at  Duryea,  was  among  them 
The  attack  on  the  washery,  he  de- 
clared, was  made  by  a mob  of  5,000 
armed  with  clubs,  stones  and  pieces  cf 
gas  pipe.  The  washery  guards,  who 
wrere  arrested  by  the  borough  authori- 
ties, had  to  be  escorted  to  the  trail 
through  a double  line  of  deputies.  Even 
with  tw'enty-seven  deputies  surround- 
ing or  on  board  the  car,  it  wras  stone  I 
as  it  pulled  away  A commercial  drum- 
mer, w'ho  gave  ten  cents  to  a negro 
cook,  who  was  fleeing  from  the  wash- 
ery, was  spotted  some  time  later  in  the 
crowTd  and  given  a bad  beating.  The 
office  at  the  washery  was  wrecked  and 
its  contents  destroyed.  One  of  the 
washery  guards  had  his  skull  cracked 
writh  a blow  from  a base  ball  bat,  a-'d 
as  he  was  lying  unconscious  on  the 
depot  floor,  waiting  to  be  taken  to  the 
hospital  in  Scranton,  some  one  in  the 
mob  threw  a stone  through  the  win- 
dow and  hit  his  bruised  and  bleeding 
head. 

The  witness  also  detailed  other  less 
serious  incidents  of  a like  general  char- 
acter in  Kingston.  Plains,  Plymouth 
and  the  other  towns  around  Wilke-- 
Barre. 

President  Mitchell  and  his  party  have 
left  the  $5  a day  Continental  for  the 
Colonial,  a semi-private  hotel,  seven 
blocks  away,  where  the  rates  are  more 
reasonable  and  the  surroundings  more 
home-like. 

There  is  some  talk  of  a session  of  a 
week  or  ten  days  in  Washington,  to 
give  audience  to  parties  whom  the 
commissioners  themselves  want  to 
summon  and  others  who  have  volun- 
teered testimony  and  advice.  The 
commission  will  take  this  matter  up  fcr 
consideration  before  the  Philadelphia 
sessions  end. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


121 


Proceedings  of  Friday,  Jan.  9. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  lO.j 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  9. — The  non-union 
men  closed  their  case  before  the  strike 
commission  at  the  end  of  today’s  ses- 
sion, and  they  closed  it  with  the  best 
witness  for  their  cause  of  any  of  the 
ltl  witnesses  whom  Attorneys  Lenahan 
and  O’Brien  called  to  the  stand. 

The  witness  in  question  was  Briga- 
dier General  J.  P.  S.  Gobin,  lieutenant 
governor  of  Pennsylvania,  who  had 
charge  of  the  troops  doing  strike  duty 
during  the  most  exciting  period  of  the 
“reign  of  terror.”  The  general  knew 
a lot  about  strike  violence,  and  he 
also  knew  how  to  tell  it  effectively. 
Possibly  no  score  of  witnesses  pre- 
sented testimony  from  which  the  com- 
missioners could  draw  more  intelligent 
conclusions  of  conditions  prevailing 
during  the  strike  than  did  this  wit- 
ness. and  he  told  his  story  in  a man- 
ner which  must  have  impressed  the 
commission  that  he  was  wholly  without 
personal  interest  in  the  matters  at  is- 
sue in  tie  arbitration. 

His  direct  examination  was  a gen- 
eral resume  of  the  operations  of  the 
militia  consequent  on  strike  trouble. 
On  cross-examination,  he  was  put  to 
a defense  of  the  policy  he  followed  in 
carrying  out  the  governor’s  orders  to 
prevent  and  suppress  disorder.  An  at- 
tempt on  the  part  of  Mr.  Darrow  to 
hold  General  Gobin  up  to  censure  for 
his  conduct  of  the  strike  campaign 
proved  a boomerang.  The  powerful 
weapon  of  attack  was  an  alleged  inter- 
view with  a North  American  reporter, 
in  which  the  general  was  quoted  as 
saying  that  his  “Shoot  to  Kill”  order 
applied  to  women  and  chilldren,  as  well 
as  men.  General  Gobin  branded  the  in- 
terview as  a fabrication  and  offered  to 
prove  1 y Colonel  Clements,  who  was  at 
hand,  that  the  North  American  man 
admitted  that  he  had  been  sent  spec- 
ially to  Shenandoah  to  “Put  the  sol- 
diers in  a hole.” 

Another  allegation,  from  the  same 
source,  that  General  Gobin  was  given 
to  hob-nobbing  -with  the  coal  company 
officials,  and  particularly  that  he  had 
been  dined  and  wined  by  E.  B.  Thomas, 
chairman  of  the  Erie  board  of  dir.c- 
tors,  was  shown  to  be  equally  shal- 
low end  baseless.  As  to  the  particu- 
lar allegation  that  he  was  dined  and 
wined  by  Chairman  Thomas,  General 
Cobin  said  that  he  did  not  even  know 
Mr.  Thomas. 

In  the  early  part  of  his  direct  exam- 
ination, General  Gobin  made  reference 
to  a letter  the  governor  transmitted 
to  him  from  officers  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  in  which  complaint  was  made 
that  the  troops  were  being  used  to  pro- 
tect men  at  work  in  the  mines.  Just 
as  the  session  was  about  to  adjourn, 
Attorney  James  H.  Torrey  of  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company,  secured 
permission  to  ask  the  general  a few 


questions  and  with  only  two  interroga- 
tes brought  forth  the  statement  from 
the  witness  that  the  letter  in  question 
complained  not  only  of  the  troops  be- 
ing used  to  guard  men  at  work  but 
also  men  going  to  and  from  work  and 
further  contained  a general  protest 
against  the  soldiers  doing  police  duty. 

The  commission  directed  its  recorder 
to  .write  to  Governor  Stone  for  a copy 
of  the  letter. 

The  Companies’  Case. 

The  big  companies  will  tomorrow  en- 
ter upon  the  presentation  of  their  case. 
The  Delaware  and  Hudson  will  be  the 
first  to  present  testimony.  Attorney 
Torrey  will  make  an  opening  state- 
ment, outlining  what  his  company  pro- 
poses to  prove  and  then  Comptroller  A. 
J.  Culver  will  take  the  stand  to  present 
statements  as  to  wages,  hours  and  gen- 
eral conditions  of  the  miners  in  the 
company’s  employ.  One  of  the  features 
of  the  testimony  will  be  figures  showing 
that  250  of  the  company’s  miners  in  1901 
earned  upwards  of  $1,400  apiece. 

Superintendent.  C.  C.  Rose,  of  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  coal  department 
will  be  the  second  witness.  His  testi- 
mony will  deal  particularly  with  the 
alleged  loss  of  efficiency  and  destruc- 
tion of  discipline  following  the  close  of 
the  1900  strike.  It  is  understood  he  has 
some  very  interesting  incidents  to  re- 
late concerning  this  latter  allegation. 

Colonel  L.  A.  Watres,  of  the  Thir- 
teenth; Colonel  Charles  Clements,  of 
the  Twelfth,  and  Colonel  C.  B.  Dough- 
erty, of  the  Ninth  regiments,  were 
present  today  to  give  the  particulars  of 
the  activities  of  their  respective  com- 
mands while  on  strike  duty,  but  the 
protraction  of  the  examination  of  Gen- 
eral Gobin  and  the  commissioners’  lim- 
itation of  the  non-union  men’s  time 
made  it  impossible  for  them  to  be 
heard. 

Attorneys  O’Brien  and  Denahan  are 
quite  satisfied,  however,  that  their  long 
drawn  out  story  should  have  had  as  its 
finale  the  testimony  of  General  Gobin 
with  its  significant  climax,  comprised 
of  the  answers  of  Attorney  Torrey's 
two  closing  questions. 

Some  further  testimony  of  violence  to 
non-union  men  in  the  Wilkes-Barre, 
Schuylkill  and  in  Coxe  Bros.  & Co. 
regions  made  up  the  routine  of  the  day 
preceding  the  calling  of  General  Gobin. 


THE  MORNING  SESSION. 

General  Wilson  Presides  in  the  Ab- 
sence of  Judge  Gray. 

When  the  commission  appeared  this 
morning,  Judge  Gray  was  missing.  His 
absence  was  explained  by  a telegram 
announcing  his  illness  at  his  home  in 
Wilmington,  where  he  went  last  even- 
ing, to  spend  the  night.  General  Wil- 
son took  the  central  chair  and  presided 
during  the  day. 


Mr.  Lenahan  opened  the  proceedings 
by  presenting  transcripts  of  the  records 
of  Schuylkill  county,  showing  various 
convictions  for  strike  lawlessness.  He 
explained  that  he  presented  the  certified 
copies  of  the  records  rather  than  wit- 
nesses to  testify  orally  to  these  of- 
fenses, so  that  time  might  be  saved. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  strike 
Patrick  Sharp  was  shot  and  killed,  and 
two  coal  and  iron  policemen  were  ar- 
rested for  the  shooting.  Attorney 
Lenahan,  who  defended  them  applied 
for  a change  of  venue,  alleging  that  a 
fair  trial  could  not  be  secured  in  a 
coal  county.  Judge  Heydt  granted  the 
motion  and  in  his  accompanying  opin- 
ion declared  “a  partial  reign  of  terror 
existed  in  the  region,”  during  the 
strike.  Mr.  Lenahan  offered  a copy  of 
the  opinion  in  evidence.  Mr.  Darrow 
objected,  alleging  it  had  no  bearing  on 
the  matter  at  issue.  General  Wilson 
allowed  the  paper  to  be  filed,  pending 
a decision  later  as  to  whether  or  not 
it  would  be  accepted  in  evidence. 

Deputy  Sheriff  Horace  Jenkins,  of 
Luzerne  county,  who  was  on  the  stand 
at  adjournment  last  evening,  was  re- 
called this  morning,  and  in  answer  to 
questions  by  Mr.  Lenahan,  recounted 
the  remainder  of  the  thirty-six  strike 
disturbances  which  he  witnessed  from 
August  1,  to  the  close  of  the  strike. 
He  declared  that  for  three  and  one- 
half  months  he  was  “kept  on  a jump,” 
day  and  night,  responding  to  calls  for 
aid  from  the  sheriff  in  suppressing  and 
preventing  trouble. 

Questions  by  Commissioner  Watkins 
brought  statements  from  the  witness 
that  there  was  considerable  violence 
even  before  any  attempt  was  made  to 
mine  coal. 

On  cross-examination,  Attorney  Mc- 
Carthy brought  out  an  admission  that 
the  witness  was  not  under  bond. 

Minister  Threatened. 

Rev.  Carl  Houser,  Lutheran  mission- 
ary to  the  Slovaks  of  Hazleton  and 
vicinity,  told  that  he  was  called  to 
Lansford,  one  day,  to  conduct  services 
over  the  remains  of  a non-union  man. 
On  his  way  to  the  house  of  death  he 
was  warned  by  strikers  not  to  go  on 
or  he  would  be  harmed.  He  was  not 
deterred,  of  course,  by  these  threats 
and  entered  the  house.  No  one  was 
there  except  the  undertaker  and  no 
one  could  be  secured  to  assist  in  carry- 
ing the  body  to  the  hearse.  A crowd 
outside  numbering  200,  and  "all  of  them 
Americans,”  the  witnesse  declared, 
hooted  and  hissed  as  the  funeral  ser- 
vice was  being  read.  Ribald  songs 
were  sung  and  vile  names  were  called. 

Three  men  were  finally  secured  from 
another  neighborhood  to  assist  in  con- 
veying the  dead  man  to  the  gt*ave.  As 
the  casket  was  being  carried  from  the 
house  to  the  hearse,  the  crowd  spit  at 


122 


PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  ANTHRACITE 


it,  and  called  out  “Leave  the  scab’s 
body  on  the  street;  let  the  dogs  eat  it.” 

The  clergyman  was  called  “Hunk” 
and  “scab  priest’  and  as  he  walked 
ahead  of  the  hearse  on  the  way  to  the 
cemetery  the  mob  stoned  him.  The 
crowd  followed  to  the  graveyard  and 
standing  outside  the  fence,  threatened 
that  they  would  dig  up  the  body  after 
the  minister  went.  The  witness  told 
the  sexton  he  would  be  held  responsible 
for  the  grave  being  saved  from  sacrilege 
and  the  sexton  remained  on  watch.  No 
attempt  was  made  to  carry  out  the 
threat.  The  witness  averred  that  the 
dead  man’s  countrymen  would  have  at- 
tended the  funeral  and  assisted  in  the 
services  if  they  had  not  been  deterred 
by  the  Americans. 

John  Harvilla,  of  Beaver  Meadow, 
had  his  eye  shot  out  by  a mob  which 
attacked  him  in  his  home  on  the  night 
of  the  day  the  United  Mine  Workers 
had  a celebration.  The  crowd  visited 
him  a second  time  when  he  got  out  of 
the  hospital  and  threatened  to  shoot  his 
other  eye  out  if  he  did  not  quit  work. 

Max  Kieslich,  an  old  employe,  of  Coxe 
Bros.  & Co.,  worked  at  the  pumps  dur- 
ing the  strike.  He  was  assaulted  by 
Charley  Gallagher,  a member  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  and  one  of  his 
eyes  injured  to  such  an  extent  that  he 
had  to  remain  nine  days  in  a dark 
room,  as  a first  step  towards  saving 
his  sight.  He  was  assaulted  on  another 
occasion  by  a mob. 

Mr.  Dettry’s  Record. 

President  Mitchell  was  called  to  the 
stand  by  Mr.  LenaJhan  to  testify  that 
William  H.  Dettry,  of  Nuremberg,  was 
yesterday  elected  president  of  the  Unit- 
ed Mine  Workers  of  America  of  District 
No.  7,  to  succeed  Thomas  Duffy,  of  Me- 
Adoo.  Mr.  Mitchell  said  he  heard  such 
was  the  case;  that  he  saw  it  in  the 
newspapers.  As  usual,  he  was  not  ad- 
mitting anything  he  didn’t  have  to  ad- 
mit. 

Mr.  Dettry  being  identified,  Mr.  Lena- 
han  proceeded  to  give  him  a little  ad- 
vertising. John  Sherman,  a Coxe  Bros. 
& Co.  steam  man,  testified  that  since 
the  strike  ended  he  heard  Mr.  Dettry 
say;  “Every  man  who  worked  during 
the  strike  ought  to  have  his  nose  cut 
off.”  The  witness  also  told  that  his 
home  was  successively  stoned,  dyna- 
mited and  totally  destroyed  by  fire. 

Frank  Kaley,  of  Oneida,  another 
Coxe  steam  man,  who  belonged  to  the 
union  up  to  the  time  the  steam  men 
were  called  out,  swore  that  at  a meet- 
ing of  the  Oneida  local  in  Waller’s  hall, 
in  the  latter  part  of  May,  Mr.  Dettry, 
who  was  then  vice-president  of  the  dis- 
trict, said,  in  the  course  of  a speech, 
that  every  man  who  was  working  ought 
to  be  caught  and  given  a good  thump- 
ing. 

General  Gobin’s  Testimony. 

The  non-union  men  had  scores  of 
other  witnesses  to  call,  but  on  account 
of  the  lfinitation,  or  rather  suggestion, 
made  by  the  commission,  it  was  de- 
cided to  dispense  with  all  except  the 


National  Guard  officers.  The  first  of 
these  to  be  called  was  Brigadier  Gen- 
eral J.  P.  S.  Gobin,  commander  of  the 
Third  brigade.  He  went  on  the  stand 
at  11  o’clock  and  was  not  relieved  until 
late  in  the  afternoon.  The  general  was 
in  immediate  charge  of  all  the  troops 
in  the  field  during  the  strike  period.  His 
story  was  a recapitulation  of  the  gen- 
eral history  of  strike  violence.  He  told 
it  in  a plain,  straightforward  and  evi- 
dently unbiased  manner,  and  the  com- 
missioners gave  him  close  attention. 
General  Wilson  evinced  especial  inter- 
est in  his  narration,  and  when  called 
upon  to  make  a ruling  anent  the  privi- 
lege of  the  witness  in  the  matter  of 
making  statements,  invariably  decided 
on  allowing  the  widest  reasonable 
scope.  General  Wilson  is  himself  a 
brigadier. 

An  interesting  feature  of  General 
Gobin’s  testimony  was  his>  reiteration 
of  admiration  for  the  excellence  of  the 
picket  service  maintained  by  the  strik- 
ers. “I’ve  done  some  military  service 
in  my  time,”  said  the  veteran  of  two 
wars  and  half  a dozen  tours  of  strike 
duty,  “but  I never  saw  such  a perfect 
system  of  picketing  as  that  which  was 
maintained  by  the  strikers  in  this  last 
strike.  Even  my  own  headquarters  was 
picketed.  I could  not  make  a move  that 
was  not  anticipated.  I know  how  the 
thing  was  managed  (he  looked  at  the 
press  gallery)  and  I must  commend 
them  for  the  excellence  of  their  man- 
agement.'’ 

At  the  suggestion  of  Commissioner 
Clarke,  the  lawyers  gave  over  ques- 
tioning Genera1  Gobin  and  he  told  his 
story  without  suggestions. 

On  the  night  of  July  30,  he  was  called 
to  Harrisburg  by  Adjutant  General 
Stewart  and  consulted  regarding  the 
advisability  of  acceding  to  the  request 
of  the  sheriff  of  Schuylkill  county  for 
military  assistance.  There  had  been  a 
serious  riot  at  Shenandaoh  the-  day  be- 
fore, in  which  young  Beddell  was  killed 
and  many  persons  injured.  Telephonic 
communication  was  had  with  citizens  of 
Shenandoah,  who  were  personally 
known  by  the  general  to  be  reliable, 
and  they  corroborated  the  description 
of  the  condition  in  and  about  the  town 
as  given  by  the  sheriff.  Thereupon  two 
regiments  of  infantry  and  a troop  of 
cavalry  were  dispatched  to  Shenandoah. 

Arrived  at  Shenandoah,  the  general 
had  great  difficulty  in  establishing  his 
camp,  because  of  being  boycotted.  He 
was  unable  to  get  a,  team  of  horses  in 
Shenandoah.  The  first  horses  he  got 
were  a team  loaned  by  the  Mahanoy 
City  fire  company. 

“You  were  boycotted,  eh?”  remarked 
Commissioner  Watkins. 

Soldiers  Boycotted. 

“Very  badly,  sir,”  answered  the  gen- 
eral. 

There  was  no  semblance  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  civil  law  in  Shenan 
doah  on  the  day  the  troops  arrived. 
The  chief  burgess  was  sick,  and  the 
chief  of  police  and  all  the  members  ol 


the  police  force  were  laid  up  with  in- 
juries received  in  the  riot  of  the  dav 
before. 

The  next  day,  the  burgess  and  chief 
of  police  got  on  their  feet  again  and  in 
company  with  the  president  of  the  bor- 
ough council,  waited  on  the  general  and 
confessed  that  the  local  authorities  were 
wholly  unable  to  cope  with  the  situ- 
ation. The  police  force  was  in  the  hos- 
pital and  no  one  could  be  induced  to  fill 
the  vacancies. 

The  witness  here  proceeded  to  read 
orders,  letters  and  the  like  sent  and  re- 
ceived by  him,  bearing  on  disorder. 

“How  were  these  made  public?” 
asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

“They  were  published  in  the  news- 
papers,” said  the  general.  “There  was 
an  influx  of  newspaper  men  that  day 
and  they  got  hold  of  pretty  much  every- 
thing that  was  going — and  some  things 
that  weren’t  going  on.” 

On  the  second  day,  the  general  was 
visited  by  a committee  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  headed  by  National 
Board  Member  Myles  Dougherty,  and 
District  Board  Member  De  Silva.  They 
protested'  there  was  no  occasion  for 
calling  out  the  troops;  that  the  union 
officers  could  preserve  order  if  called 
upon  to  do  so,  and  that  they  had  not 
been  called  upon.  They  promised  to 
assist  to  the  full  extent  of  their  power 
in  maintaining  peace. 

Here  the  witness  proceeded  to  re- 
count some  of  the  experiences  he  and 
his  troops  had  during  the  early'  part  of 
their  stay  in  Shenandoah. 

Col.  Hoffman’s  Report. 

August  3,  Colonel  Hoffman,  of  the 
Eighth  regiment,  reported  that  on  the 
night  before  a sentinel  W'as  knocked 
down  by  a stone  thrown  from  a clump 
of  laurels,  near  the  camp  lines,  that 
four  times  during  the  same  night  other 
sentinels  were  stoned,  and  that  twice 
during  the  night,  the  regiment  wras 
called  to  arms,  by  reason  of  the  at- 
tacks of  stone-throwers. 

An  order  had  to  be  issued  forbidding 
the  soldiers  from  going  in  to  town  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  they'  w'ere  hoot- 
ed, jeered  and  called  opprobrious 
names. 

Dynamiting  of  non-union  men’s 
houses  began  about  this  time,  and 
scarcely  a night  passed  but  what  some 
one  came  to  camp  asking  for  protection 
for  the  home  of  some  such  victim. 

At  this  juncture  a lengthy  discussion 
among  the  law’yers  wras  provoked  by' 
an  objection  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Dar- 
row to  General  Gobin  testifying  that 
the  sheriff  of  Carbon  county' — accord- 
ing to  hearsy' — had  refused  to  make  re- 
quisition for  troops,  in  the  face  of  de- 
mands from  many  of  the  best  citizens. 

During  the  discussion  Mr.  Darrow' 
made  the  remark  to  the  effect  that 
"great  and  wise”  as  was  the  w'itness, 
he  should  not  be  permitted  to  violate 
the  most  common  rules  of  evidence, 
especially  w'hen  the  witness,  a lawyer, 
knew  it  was  irregular. 

General  Gobin  took  umbrage  at  this, 


mink  s'f'RiKK  Commission 


123 


and  addressing  the  Commission  said 
he  would  not  testify  further  if  such  re- 
marks as  those  made  by  Mr.  Darrow 
were  repeated. 

•Mr.  Darrow  assured  the  witness,  first 
that  he  intended  no  offense,  and,  sec- 
ond, that  he  would  not  be  offended  if 
the  general  declined  to  say  another 
word. 

General  Wilson  said  that  personalities 
must  not  be  indulged  in  and  the  testi- 
mony proceeded. 

Protest  Against  Troops. 

A letter  addressed  to  Governor  Stone 
and  transmitted  to  General  Gobin, 
written  by  a committee  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  protesting  against  the 
troops  guarding  men  at  work  in  the 
mines  was  read  by  the  witness.  He 
also  read  his  report  to  the  governor 
on  the  matter  in  question,  in  which 
he  stated  that  the  guarding  of  men  at 
work  was  only  incident  to  prevention 
and  supression  of  disorder.  The  men 
were  not  guarded  by  the  troops  while  at 
work,  the  report  declared,  but  only 
while  going  to  and  from  work.  The 
demands  of  the  different  sheriffs  for 
assistance,  the  placing  of  troops  in  the 
other  counties  of  the  coal  regions  and 
the  continued  acts  of  lawlessness,  even 
after  the  troops  were  on  duty  were  re- 
counted in  detail  by  the  general. 

Referring  to  his  “shoot  to  kill”  order, 
the  general  said  that  it  had  the  effect 
of  diminishing  the  boldness  of  the  dis- 
orderly element  and  tended  to  save 
life  more  than  any  act  he  performed 
while  in  the  field. 

The  mobs  were  growing  more  desper- 
ate, the  women  and  children  were  not 
to  be  restrained  by  a mere  show  of 
force,  and  all  in  all  the  tension  was 
increasing  to  the  straining  point.  A 
conflict  was  every  moment  imminent. 
If  a clash  came  there  would  be  women 
and  children  shot  down.  When  it  was 
realized  that  the  soldiers  would  no 
longer  submit  to  assaults,  and  abuse, 
and  that  the  law  was  to  be  upheld  at 
any  cost,  the  situation  was  very  ma- 
terially relieved.  The  women  and  chil- 
dren kept  away  and  the  soldiers  were 
practically  free  from  molestation. 

Resuming  his  testimony  at  the  after- 
noon session,  General  Gobin  told  of  a 
report  made  to  him  by  Colonel  Clement 
relative  to  disturbances  in  the  vicinity 
of  Lansford  and  Summit  Hill. 

“I  called  upon  the  burgess  of  Lans- 
for  and  told  him,  a conflict  was  in- 
evitable. I then  issued  General  Orders, 
No.  3.  This  order  was  communicated 
to  the  people  by  the  burgess.  The 
order  has  been  variously  designated, 
but  I leave  it  to  the  members  of  the 
commission  for  their  decision.” 

Shoot  to  Kill  Order. 

This  was  the  "shoot  to  kill  order.” 
The  general  read  it  to  the  commission. 
The  order  had  a salutary  effect. 

“Had  there  been  any  shooting  by 
your  men?”  asked  General  Wilson. 

“Yes,”  replied  the  witness.  “It  was 
only  when  the  troops  were  fired  upon 
that  they  fired  back.  There  were  sev- 


eral occasions  when  shots  were  ex- 
changed between  soldiers  and  strikers. 
I did  not  issue  ball  cartridges  until  the 
troops  had  been  fired  upon.” 

The  general  then  told  of  the  calling 
out  of  the  entire  national  guard  of 
10,000  men,  made  necessary  by  his  in- 
ability with  the  3,000  men  of  his  brigade 
to  cope  with  the  situation. 

In  response  to  a question  from  Mr. 
Lenahan  as  to  what  was  the  result  of 
his  observation  as  to  lawlessness  in  the 
anthracite  region  as  a whole.  He  said: 
“I  have  made  extensive  observations  of 
conditions  in  the  whole  region,  and  I 
have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  the 
whole  region  was  in  an  excited  state  of 
lawlessness.’ 

When  the  whole  division  was  called 
out,  General  Gobin  was  transferred  to 
the  Lackawanna-Wyoming  district, 
establishing  headquarters  at  Wilkes- 
Barre. 

The  disturbances  in  this  region  con- 
tinued to  be  numerous  and  serious. 
There  was  most  assuredly  a necessity 
of  the  troops  in  every  part  of  the  re- 
gion. Even  with  the  troops  in  the  field 
there  was  trouble. 

Commissioner  Clark  remarked  that 
it  had  been  very  generally  stated  on 
the  one  hand  that  if  troops  were  sent 
into  the  field  to  give  protection,  thou- 
sands of  men  would  return  to  work, 
and  on  the  other  hand  that  when  the 
troops  came  the  men  did  not  return  to 
work  in  thousands. 

“No  50,000  soldiers,”  said  the  general, 
“that  exists  today,  can  guard  every 
colliery,  every  workman’s  house  and 
give  the  necessary  protection  to  the 
whole  region  covered  by  the  strike.  The 
anthracite  region  is  180  miles  long,  by 
eighty  miles  wide  in  some  places.  It 
would  take  four  men  in  every  detail,  at 
least.  The  regular  army  of  the  United 
States  and  the  whole  national  guard  of 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  could  afford 
the  kind  of  protection  that  make  it  pos- 
sible for  a man  to  be  assured  he  would 
not  be  molested  if  he  worked.” 

Darrow  Had  the  Worst  of  It. 

The  cross-examination  of  General 
Gobin  was  conducted  by  Mr.  Darrow. 
He  had  been  priming  himself  for  days 
to  handle  the  general,  and  as  events 
proved,  he  did  well  to  prime  himself. 
Mr.  Darrow  sought  to  turn  the  exam- 
ination into  a trial  of  General  Gobin 
on  his  conduct  while  afield.  General 
Gobin  seemingly  welcomed  the  trial 
and  encouraged  Mr.  Darrow  to  inquire 
fully  into  his  activities.  No  witness 
who  has  been  on  the  stand  since  the 
sessions  began,  not  excluding  that  very 
admirable  witness,  John  Mitchell,  gave 
a better  account  of  himself  than  Gen- 
eral Gobin.  Mr.  Darrow  had  easily  the 
worst  of  it,  when  the  combat  ended. 

Whether  or  not  martial  law  was  de- 
clared by  Governor  Stone  in  his  order 
calling  out  the  whole  division  of  the 
National  Guard  was  one  of  the  first 
questions  discussed  in  the  cross-exam- 
ination. 

General  Gobin  suggested  that  Mr. 


Darrow  read  the  governor’s  order.  He, 
himself,  did  not  care  to  venture  an 
opinion,  as  the  very  question  was  at 
present  before  the  Supreme  court. 

After  General  Gobin  had  outlined 
generally  what  his  duties  and  powers 
were  as  he  saw  them,  he  was  asked  by 
Mr.  Darrow  if  he  had  a right  to  shoot 
persons  who  might  throw  stones  at  the 
soldiers.  General  Gobin  said  the  sol- 
diers had  a right  to  shoot  anyone  who 
resisted  their  authority  to  such  an  ex- 
tent as  to  demand  that  drastic  meas- 
ure. He  also  would  exercise  his  au- 
thority to  the  extent  of  seizing  provis- 
ions for  feeding  his  men,  if  boycotting 
prevented  him  from  buying  them. 

The  witness  refused  to  make  a cate- 
gorical answer  to  the  question  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  soldiers  should  shoot 
a boy  15  years  of  age  who  threw  stones 
at  them. 

“If,”  said  the  general,  "a  soldier  is 
given  a duty  to  perform  and  he  is  en- 
dowed with  the  greatest  power  a com- 
monwealth can  confer,  it  is  incumbent 
on  him  to  use  that  power  to  its  fullest 
limit  in  carrying  out  his  duty.” 

Riotous  Warfare. 

Every  authority  a soldier  has  in  war 
can  be  exercised  by  a soldier  on  strike 
duty,  the  general  averred.  He  quoted, 
in  this  connection,  the  words  of  Car- 
lyle: “There  is  no  warfare  as  terrible 

as  riotous  warfare.” 

“But  was  there  any  warfare?”  asked 
Mr.  Darrow. 

“There  was  very  decidedly  no  end  of 
guerilla  warfare,”  answered  the  general 
with  emphasis,  indicative  of  the  mental 
survey  of  his  experiences  during  the 
three  months  he  was  afield. 

Mr.  Darrow  brought  up  the  report  of 
the  late  Colonel  Hoffman,  in  which  he 
told  of  a sentry  firing  on  a man  who 
was  “skulking”  about  the  Eighth  regi- 
ment stables  and  who  was  shot  at  by 
the  sentry  when  he  refused  to  obey 
the  call  “Halt!”  In  making  the  report, 
Colonel  Hoffman  used  the  words:  “The 
sentry  fired,  I regret  to  say,  without 
results.” 

Mr.  Darrow  put  it  that  this  meant 
Colonel  Hoffman  regretted  the  skulker 
had  not  been  killed,  and  putting  this 
assumption  before  General  Gobin  asked 
him  if  he  approved  of  it. 

After  some  quibbling,  General  Gobin 
made  an  answer  substantially  in  effect 
that  if  a man  who  is  surprised  in  the 
act  of  skulking  about  a military  camp, 
refuses  to  heed  a sentry’s  command  to 
halt,  and  runs  away,  the  sentry  has  a 
right  to  shoot  to  make  him  halt. 

In  answer  to  a question  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row as  to  what  he  considered  the  most 
serious  offense  the  strikers  were  guilty 
of  that  came  under  his  personal  obser- 
vation, General  Gobin  replied:  “Teach- 
ing the  young  to  disregard  the  law.” 

Again  Mr.  Darrow  brought  up  the 
“shoot  to  kill”  order,  and  asked  if  it 
was  not  true  that  a sentry  who  had 
shot  a man  pleaded  this  order  as  his 
justification.  General  Gobin  said  he 
did  not  know  such  to  be  the  case.  Mr. 


124 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Lenahan  informed  the  commission  that 
such  was  not  true;  that  the  sentry  de- 
fended himself  under  the  general  pow- 
ers conferred  upon  him  by  the  statutes. 

The  “shoot  to  kill”  order  was  in  ef- 
fect that  the  most  reliable  men  from 
among  the  sharpshooters  were  to  be 
placed  as  file  closers  in  moving  bodies 
of  troops,  and  that  if  the  troops  were 
attacked  these  assailants  should  be 
fired  upon,  if  they  could  not  be  caught 
otherwise. 

Mr.  Darrow  read  from  the  North 
American  a purported  interview  which 
R.  J.  Beamish  had  with  the  general, 
in  which  the  latter  is  quoted  as  saying 
that  the  order  was  intended  to  apply 
indiscriminately  to  women  and  chil- 
dren. 

General  Gobin  denied  ever  having 
made  such  a statement.  He  ad- 
mitted that  he  talked  with  Mr.  Beam- 
ish, but  was  positive  had  not  made 
any  comment  on  the  order  other  than 
it  “meant  just  what  it  says.”  Various 
newspaper  men  tried  to  interview  him 
on  the  order,  but  his  invariable  en- 
swer  was,  “The  order  speaks  for  it- 
self.” 

The  Mission  of  Richard  Beamish. 

Geenral  Gobin  made  the  allegation 
that  Mr.  Beamish  told  his  close  friend, 
Colonel  Clements,  to  be  careful  what 
he  had  to  say,  as  he,  Mr.  Beamish,  had 
bc-en  sent  by  the  North  American  to 
“get  the  soldiers  into  a hole.”  “Colonel 
Clements  is  here  to  corroborate  this,” 
adedd  the  general. 

He  further  averred  that  Mr.  Beam- 
ish forged  Colonel  Clements’  name  to 
a telegram  to  a train  despatcher  to 
stop  a troop  train  that  he  might  get 
aboard. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  if  it  was  not  true 
that  Colonel  Clements  gave  Mr.  Beam- 
ish authority  to  write  the  telegram  he 
being  very  busily  engaged  at  the  time 
the  request  for  the  order  to  stop  the 
train  was  made.  General  Gobin  said 
Colonel  Clements  would  testify  that 
such  was  not  the  case. 

It  was  4.30  o’clock  when  General 
Gobin  left  the  stand.  General  Wilson 
thanked  him,  in  the  name  of  the  com- 
mission, for  his  attendance. 

General  Gobin’s  Testimony. 

General  Gobin’s  testimony  was,  in 
part,  as  follows: 

By  Mr.  Lenahan: 

Q.  Was  your  brigade  called  out  by  the 
governor  during  the  strike,  and  if  so,  1 
wish  you  would  go  on  and  tell  in  you1 
own  way  without  interruption  from  in  • 
everything  that  occurred  until  finally 
the  troops  were  withdrawn  from  the  coa.' 
region,  starting  out  with  the  first  county 
that  you  went  to  and  then  going  from 
that  county  to  each  of  the  other  coun- 
ties until  you  were  finally  withdrawn, 
using  your  reports  and  all  that  in  the 
meanwhile  and  making  your  statement. 
A.  On  the  night  of  the  30th  of  July  I re- 
ceived ordSrs  to  report  at  Harrisburg 
Governor  Stone  was  not  at  home  and  Ad 
jutant  General  Stewart  was  on  duty.  I 
arrived  there  about  9 o’clock  or  half-past 
nine.  He  exhibited  to  me  various  re 


quests  coming  from  the  sheriff  and  citi- 
zens of  Schuylkill  county  giving  infor- 
mation of  a riot  at  that  poinj  during 
the  afternoon  of  that  day  at  which  then 
it  was  reported  a number  of  men  had 
been  killed  and  a certain  number  more  in- 
jured and  requesting  the  assistance  of 
troops.  I may  say  to  the  gentlemen  of 
the  commission  that  I had  considerable 
experience  in  that  region  previously,  I 
knew  that  region  very  well,  and  there- 
fore the  governor  telephoned  back  to  the 
adjutant  general  that  he  and  myself 
would  go  over  the  situation  carefully  and 
act  upon  what  we  deemed  to  be  for  the 
best  interests  of  the  state.  There  were 
several  gentlemen  in  Shenandoah  in 
whom  1 had  implicit  confidence.  I 
knew  their  services  and  positions  on 
previous  occasions.  I endeavored  to 
get  them  by  telephone.  One  of 
those  gentlemen— a clerical  gentleman 
—was  not  there;  he  was  away 
on  his  vacation.  Of  the  other  gen- 
tlemen whom  I endeavored  to  communi- 
cate with  I only  succeeded  in  getting  one. 
I got  the  information  from  him  that 
satisfied  both  of  us  that  the  request  of 
the  sheriff  should  be  acceded  to.  At  12 
o’clock  I ordered  out  two  regiments  of 
twelve  companies  each  and  the  troop  of 
cavalry  to  start  for  the  region,  for  Shen- 
andoah. I arrived  there  with  four  com- 
panies of  infantry  at  about  6.30  in  the 
morning.  I telephoned  the  sheriff  to  meet 
me  and  he  met  me  there.  This  was  on 
the  31st  of  July,  yes,  and  the  riot  had 
occurred  on  the  30th  of  July.  The  re- 
mainder of  my  command  were  coming  in 
and  I immediately  stationed  troops  where 
I supposed  they  were  necessary  and  be- 
gan to  make  arrangements  for  their  en- 
campment. I had  ordered  subsistence 
there  and  my  own  commissary  was  com- 
ing with  rations;  but  I needed  wagons 
and  I found  I was  unable  to  get  any.  In 
Mahanoy  City,  four  or  five  miles  off,  there 
was  a fire  company  that  gave  me  the 
first  team  I could  get,  a team  belonging 
to  the  fire  company,  to  convey  my  tents 
and  rations  up  on  the  hill.  Have  the 
commission  ever  visited  that  region? 

Several  members  of  the  Commission: 
Yes. 

A..  (Continuing).  Then  you  know  the 
difficulty  of  the  situation  and  of  en- 
camping there. 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  You  have  a map 
of  it? 

The  Witness:  Yes.  This  is  a map  pre- 

pared by  the  engineers,  if  you  desire  to 
see  it. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  We  were  there, 
we  know  about  it. 

Mr.  Darrow:  We  object  to  the  map. 

The  Witness:  This  gives  the  location 

of  all  the  collieries  and  the  position  of 
my  troops.  I finally  succeeded  in  find- 
ing through  my  officers  other  means  of 
transportation.  The  tents  arrived  and  I 
put  them  up  on  the  hill  and  proceeded  to 
exercise  military  authority. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  Why  were  you 
unable  to  get  the  teams? 

The  Witness:  They  refused  to  give 

them  to  me,  sir. 

Commissioner  Parker:  The  livery  peo- 

ple and  so  on  in  the  town  refused  to  give 
them  to  you? 

The  Witness:  Yes,  sir.  One  man. 

O’Hara,  gave  me  something  notwithstand- 
ing. as  they  informed  me.  of  the  protest 
made  against  it. 

Was  Boycotted. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  Tn  other  words, 
you  were  boycotted,  were  you? 


The  Witness:  Very  badly,  sir.  I then 

desired  to  get  into  communication  w'itn 
the  civil  authority.  There  are  two  acts 
of  . assembly  controlling  the  rights  of 
troops  and  their  duties  in  Pennsylvania, 
the  recent  one  of  1901,  giving  the  governor, 
in  our  judgment,  a larger  power.  The 
other  required  us  to  report  to  the  sheriff 
and  support  the  civil  arm  of  the  law.  I 
was  acting  under  that  act  of  assembly. 
The  sheriff  remained  with  me  part  of  the 
day  and  then  gave  me  one  or  two  deputies 
to  instruct  me  and  I endeavored  to  get 
in  personal  communication  with  the  civil 
authority.  The  chief  burgess  was  sick, 
there  were  no  policemen  on  duty.  They 
had  all  been  injured  the  previous  day. 
There  was  therefore  no  civil  authorities 
with  whom  I could  consult.  On  the  fol- 
lowing day,  however,  the  chief  burgess, 
the  chief  of  police,  the  president  of  the 
town  council  and  one  other  member  of 
the  town  council — probably  two — came  to 
my  headquarters  and  said  that  the  sit- 
uation was  such  that  they  were  unable 
to  exercise  any  control  over  the  peace 
and  order  of  that  community,  that  they 
had  no  policemen,  that  their  policemen 
had  all  been  injured  in  the  riot  the  day 
previous;  that  they  could  get  no  men  to 
serve  on  the  force  and  that  they  had  no 
means  of  paying  them  if  they  could  get 
them;  that  they  could  not  get  a meeting 
of  the  town  council,  that  they  could  not 
get  a quorum  together  and  therefore 
they  must  depend  on  me  to  keep  order. 
I was  therefore  placed  in  that  situation, 
and  when  the  balance  of  my  troops  came 
on  I stationed  them  wherever  I could, 
principally  occupying  * » * there  were 
three  railroad  depots,  I guarded  two  of 
them  for  different  reasons,  but  none  of 
them  controlled  w-hat  was  regarded  as 
the  violent  district.  On  the  day  following. 
I think,  a committee  of  Mine  Workers 
* * * then  I issued  this  order. 

The  Witness:  They  were  issued  to  my 

troops,  copies  sent  to  each  of  the  com- 
manding officers,  and  published  in  the 
general  newspapers.  There  was  an  im- 
mediate influx  of  newspaper  gentlemen 
who  got  hold  of  about  everything  that 
was  going  on  and  some  things  that  were 
not  going  on. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  Why  did  you 

station  guards  at  the  depot? 

The  Witness:  I will  say  that  when  I 

arrived  and  looked  for  headquarters  l 
went  to  the  Ferguson  House  and  found 
there  an  old  soldier,  a Grand  Army  Man, 
I may  say,  whom  I knew.  He  had  seen 
the  fight  the  day  before,  or  the  row  or 
whatever  you  call  it.  and  he  did  not  deem 
it  wise  to  get  out  of  town  that  night  but 
stayed  over  until  the  next  morning.  I had 
a long  conversation  with  him  and  I re- 
ceived a great  deal  of  information  from 
him  as  to  the  character  of  the  fight.  It 
had  centered  around  the  depot  of  the 
Reading  company,  which  is  a small  frame 
building.  I examined  that  depot  and  was 
satisfied  from  the  bullet  holes  in  it  and 
around  it  that  there  had  been  consider- 
able of  a muss  there  the  day  before.  I 
had  a quantity  of  ammunition  with  me 
and  no  place  to  put  it.  I occupied  one 
of  the  rooms  of  that  depot  as  storage  for 
my  ammunition  and  therefore  put  a heavy' 
guard  around  it.  The  other  one — the 
Pennsylvania  depot— was  down  at  the  ex- 
treme other  end  of  the  town  and  in  a 
very'  noisy  and  boisterous  locality'  where 
there  was  a great  deal  of  trouble  and  a 
great  many  people  residing.  That  was  a 
very  delicate  place  to  put  soldiers.  It  is 
on  a high  bank — the  depot  is— with  a 
sunken  road  running  along  and  around  it 


and  the  dwelling  houses  are  in  a still 
higher  plane.  So  I occupied  those  two 
places,  as  I thought  strategic  points,  from 
which  I could  control  the  situation  in  any 
part  of  the  town.  My  troops  arrived  that 
afternoon  and  I made  a thorough  ex- 
amination of  the  town,  as  I thought,  ev- 
erywhere I could.  Next  morning  I met 
a number  of  gentlemen  representing  the 
Miners’  union— yes,  I may  say  that— and 
had  a conversation  with  them.  They  were 
headed  -by  Miles  Dockerty,  whom  X knew, 
and  had  seen  on  former  occasions.  We 
had  quite  a free  and  easy  conversation 
on  the  situation.  They  told  me  that  there 
was  no  occasion  for  the  troops,  that  they 
would  have  preserved  order  or  could  have 
preserved  order  if  they  had  been  called 
upon,  that  they  had  not  been  called  upon, 
and  that  there  was  not  much  of  a riot 
anyhow.  I told  them  that  I thought 
there  was  a good  deal  of  a riot  and  that 
the  appearance  of  things  indicated  that 
there  had  been  very  much  of  a riot,  and 
from  the  information  I had  we  were  in 
a community  without  a particle  of 
civil  law  and  without  a civil  officer  in 
commission  or  prepared  to  preserve  the 
peace  or  maintain  order,  and  that  I 
thought  they  were  making  a mistake  in 
trying  to  minimize  the  situation  or  to  pre- 
sent it  in  a false  light,  that  that  would 
encourage  the  people  to  further  violence— 
if  they  were  talking  and  telling  people 
that  that  kind  of  a riot  was  of  no  con- 
sequence; that  that  would  certainly  en- 
courage the  people  in  that  direction  and 
that  they  were  making  a mistake.  One 
of  the  committee  was  a very  old  friend 
of  mine  whom  I had  known  all  my 
life  and  I talked  freely  to  him  and 
to  all  of  them.  They  said  they 
would  preserve  order  and  I told  them  I 
hoped  they  would  give  me  every  assist- 
ance in  their  power,  and  we  parted  in 
that  way.  This  is  only  an  epitome  of  the 
conversation.  It  was  quite  lengthy  and 
lasted  some  time.  I went  into  camp  on 
the  night  of  the  I3st. 

There  was  a peculiar  condition  of  things 
In  that  neighborhood.  For  several  squares 
almost  every  house  is  a drinking  place. 
The  road  leading  right  out  to  Indian 
Ridge  colliery  and  my  camp  is  that  kind 
of  a road,  and  there  were  frequent  fights, 
and  it  soon  became  very  apparent  that 
something  must  be  done  to  prevent  trou- 
ble. The  men  were  constantly  insulted; 
there  was  no  vile  name  that  was  not  em- 
ployed toward  them,  and  1 was  com- 
pelled to  keep  them  out  of  the  town.  I 
do  not  think  there  was  an  officer  or  man 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


that  could  pass  through  certain  portions 
of  the  town  without  being  subject  to  in- 
sult of  some  kind  or  other.  If  a man 
could  not  talk  any  English  at  all  he  could 
talk  one  vile  epithet  that  he  could  apply 
to  a soldier.  There  were  not  so  many 
men  in  it,  they  were  largely  boys.  Men 
would  be  in  the  vicinity  but  they  would 
not  do  the  calling— not  many  of  them.  I 
therefore  issued  very  strict  orders.  Soon 
other  troubles  began  all  over  the  region 
and  reports  came  to  me  of  disturbances 
here  and  there.  I endeavored  to  avoid 
any  trouble  until  about  the  18th  of  Au- 
gust, I think— I would  not  be  positive  as 
to  dates  unless  1 consulted  all  my  pa- 
pers—but  until  events  over  in  what  is 
known  as  the  Panther  Creek  valley— well, 
around  about  the  town  of  Gilberton  the 
troubles  apparently  began.  That  is  a 
town,  a very  lengthy  town  along  the  rail- 
road right  over  the  ridge,  what  is  known 
as  Turkey  Run  Hill  down  the  other  side, 
and  they  commenced  dynamiting  over 
there  very  early.  There  was  nothing  at 
work  over  there,  except  one  colliery,  one 
working  pumping  out  the  water.  But 
yet  there  was  a great  deal  of  disturbance 
and  frequent  dynamiting.  Well,  there 
was  scarcely  a night  during  the  month 
of  August  that  there  was  not  some  re- 
port of  trouble  in  that  region,  and  finally 
I was  sending  my  troops  around  every 
morning  and  my  cavalry  frequently  at 
night,  but  I never  succeeded,  rarely  suc- 
ceeded in  finding  anybody,  because,  I 
want  to  say  to  the  credit  of  the  gentle- 
men who  were  running  the  other  side  of 
the  campaign,  that  they  did  the  best 
picketing  that  I ever  saw  in  my  life.  I 
could  not  move  a column  of  my  troops  in 
any  direction,  or  at  any  time  of  the  day 
or  night,  without  finding  some  people  on 
duty.  Even  the  headquarters  in  my  sta- 
ble were  well  picketed  and  I appreciated 
the  manner  in  which  they  did  it.  They 
did  it  well,  but  a little  inconvenient. 

By  Mr.  Darrow:  Q.  A little  disappoint- 

ing when  you  were  looking  for  trouble? 
A.  Yes,  disappointed  me  every  time.  I 
was  not  looking  particularly  for  trouble, 
but  I was  looking  for  the  other  men  that 
were  making  trouble.  This  thing  extend- 
ed to  the  Panther  Creek  valley  and  the 
demands  became  there  very  urgent,  but 
the  sheriff  of  Carbon  county  could  not 
be  induced  to  make  the  call  for  troops  the 
citizens  and  other  people,  committees, 
were  urging  upon  the  governor  of  the 
state. 

Q.  Are  you  telling  what  you  know  now, 
as  a lawyer,  when  you  said  people  were 


125 


urging?  A.  Yes,  because  they  were  urg- 
ing me.  Q.  You  are  a lawyer,  I beliece? 
A.  I profess  to  be.  Q.  Do  you  think  you 
have  a right  to  tell  the  commission  what 
the  people  urged  the  sheriff?  I object. 

The  Acting  Chairman:  I decide  Gen- 

eral Gobin  may  give  testimony  on  such 
information  as  he  himself  personally 
knew  and  such  information  as  came  to 
him  from  the  officers  under  his  com- 
mand, or  those  under  his  command  who 
were  there  for  the  purpose  of  assisting 
him  in  discharging  the  official  duties  com- 
mitted to  his  charge. 

The  Witness:  I desire  simply  to  make 

a statement  for  myself  now.  I am  here 
at  the  request  of  the  commission  and  if 
the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Chi- 
cago proposes  to  use  language  such  as 
he  did  a moment  ago,  I shall  answer  no 
question  of  his. 

Mr.  Darrow:  You  will  not  offend  me 

by  refusing  to  converse  with  me,  I as- 
sure you. 

Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  The  sarcasm  of 

the  gentleman  is  utterly  uncalled  for. 
He  spoke  of  General  Gobin  being  a great 
man  and  a wise  man.  We  of  Pennsylva- 
nia know  General  Gobin  is  a wise  man 
and  a brave  soldier  and  we  respect  him. 

The  Acting  Chairman:  I think  Mr.  Dar- 
row recognizes  that,  as  well  as  the  rest 
of  us.  I trust  these  little  personalities 
will  be  dropped  not  only  now,  but  from 
this  time  out. 

Mr.  Darrow:  They  will  be,  General,  as 

far  as  I am  concerned. 

By  Mr.  John  T.  Lenahan:  Q.  Now, 

you  are  at  Panther  Creek,  General?  A. 
After  a great  deal  of  discussion  there  1 
received  from  the  sheriff,  by  telephone, 
from  the  sheriff  of  Carbon  county,  this 
telephonic  dispatch  taken  by  my  sten- 
ographer on  the  18th  of  August: 

“There  was  a riot  in  Nesquehoning,  re- 
sulting in  the  death  of  one  of  the  rioters. 
His  body  was  taken  to  Lansford  where  he 
lived.  More  trouble  is  brewing.  This 
evening,  while  one  of  my  deputies,  was 
reading  the  riot  act  to  about  five  hun- 
dred, the  papers  were  torn  out  of  his 
hands  and  he  had  to  run  for  his  life.  I 
am  powerless,  and  I must  call  upon  you 
for  troops.  I fear  there  will  be  more 
trouble  in  the  morning.  (Signed)  Sher- 
iff Combert.  (He  is  talking  from  Mauch 
Chunk,  and  want  the  troops  there  to- 
morrow morning.  He  will  have  a deputy 
there  at  Lansford  to  meet  General  Gobin 
The  name  of  the  deputy  who  will  meet 
General  Gobin  is  Mertz”). 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Jan.  lO. 

[ From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  12.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  11. — The  case  of  the 
big  companies  is  now  on  before  the 
mine  strike  commission.  The  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company  is  the  first  to  be 
heard.  It  began  the  presentation  of 
testimony  yesterday  morning. 

The  first  witness  to  be  called  by  At- 
torney James  H.  Torrey,  who  is  con- 
ducting the  Delaware  and  Hudson  case, 
was  C.  C.  Rose,  general  superintend- 
ent of  the  mining  department.  He 
dealt  with  general  conditions  about  the 
mines  and  particularly  with  the  alleged 
diminution  of  discipline  and  efficiency 
since  the  “irruption”  of  John  Mitchell 
into  the  anthracite  region.  He  declared 


that  the  wages  paid  by  his  company, 
to  miners — $600  to  $650  per  year — was 
fair  compensation  for  the  labor  and 
skill  required  of  the  miner,  and  that 
not  less  than  eight  hours’  work  was  a 
reasonable  day’s  labor.  He  also  assert- 
ed that  at  most  of  the  mines  there  were 
too  many  men,  and  that  it  would  be 
better  for  both  the  employer  and  em- 
ploye if  the  force  was  reduced.  He 
added,  however,  that  it  was  impossible 
to  reduce  the  force  because  a surplus- 
sage  of  men  is  made  necessary  by  the 
refusal  of  miners  to  do  a reasonable 
day’s  work. 

In  his  opinion,  it  would  be  desirable 


to  raise  the  age  limit  for  mine  workers 
to  18  years.  His  company,  he  said, 
would  be  agreeable  to  a law  thus  re- 
vising the  limit  if  the  other  companies 
would  concur.  It  would  require  legis- 
lative enactment,  he  was  satisfied,  to 
effect  this  reform. 

At  the  close  of  the  day,  Mr.  Torrey 
announced  to  the  commission  that  the 
operators  had  conferred  about  the 
much-agitated  child-labor  question  and 
authorized  him  to  say  that  they  would 
gladly  co-operate  with  the  miners  in 
having  a law  passed  fixing  the  mini- 
mum age  for  mine  workers  at  16  years. 

The  second  witness  for  the  company 


126 

wag  its  comptroller,  Abel  I.  Culver,  of 
New  York.  He  presented  and  identi- 
fied the  various  exhibits  on  hours  and 
wages  prepared  by  his  company  for 
the  commission.  They  comprise,  in 
substance  a good  sized  dray-load.  Mr. 
Culver  told  that  the  figures  were  the 
compilations  of  from  fifty  to  one  hun- 
dred clerks  working  all  day  and  late 
into  the  night  from  the  time  the  com- 
mission was  appointed  until  the  pres- 
ent. There  is  a large  force  of  clerks 
here  still  engaged  in  this  work. 

Mr.  Torrey’s  Statement. 

In  opening  the  case  for  his  company 
Mr.  Torrey  read  the  following  state- 
ment: 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Commission:  A general  opening  of  the 
case  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  having 
already  been  made.  I shall  at  this  time 
confine  myself,  so  far  as  practicable,  to 
a brief  statement  of  the  particular  mat- 
ters which  it  is  expected  to  prove,  es- 
pecially relating  to  the  case  of  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company.  We  shall 
prove  the  charter  powers  of  the  company, 
as  set  forth  in  its  answer  already  filed 
with  the  commission,  by  which  it  will  ap- 
pear that  this  was  the  first  company  to 
enter  upon  the  business  of  mining  and 
transporting  out  of  the  state  its  anthra- 
cite coal  We  shall  show  that  for  many 
years,  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  1900 
strike,  the  relations  between  the  company 
and  its  employes  had  been  friendly  and 
harmonious,  and  that  the  inception  of 
such  degree  of  hostility  as  has  since 
marked  those  relations  was  coincident 
with  the  entry  into  the  anthracite  field 
of  the  organization  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers. 

So  far  as  relates  to  the  formal  demands 
pending  before  this  commission,  it  Is  only 
fair  to  this  respondent  to  state  that  it  is 
in  the  position,  unusual  even  in  debate 
and  practically  inadmissible  in  legal  pro- 
ceedings, of  being  compelled  to  prove  a 
negative.  After  spending  weeks  of  val- 
uable time,  the  case  upon  the  part  of 
the  miners  was  closed  without  the  pro- 
duction of  any  material  evidence  to  sub- 
stantiate any  of  their  claims.  Inasmuch 
however,  as  the  proceedings  here  are 
somewhat  extra-judicial,  we  shall  seek  to 
establish,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  nega- 
tive of  the  assertions  made  in  the  de- 
mands. 

With  almost  infinite  labor  and  pain,  and 
by  the  aid  of  an  army  of  clerks  and  ac- 
countants, a vast  array  of  informaton 
has  been  accumulated  for  the  use  of  the 
commission,  with  reference  to  the  wages 
and  conditions  of  employment  of  our  em- 
ployes. Some  of  these  exhibits  were  pre- 
pared before  any  request  was  made  by 
the  commission  as  to  specific  forms  of 
statement  desired;  others  have  been  since 
prepared  upon  lines  suggested  by  the 
commission.  They  will  all  be  submitted 
and  fully  explained,  so  far  as  explana- 
tion is  necessary,  by  the  controller  of; 
the  company. 

By  these  statements,  and  from  other 
testimony  which  will  be  offered,  it  will  b“ 
demonstrated  that  there  is  no  merit  in 
the  first  demand  for  a twenty  per  cent. 
Increase  upon  the  prices  paid  during  19'd 
to  employes  performing  contract  work. 
It  will  be  shown  that  both  the  rates  paid 
and  the  annual  earnings  upon  this  kind 
of  work  are  larger  than  are  paid  in  the 
bituminous  coal  fields  for  similar  work, 
and  the  wages  paid  for  occupations  re- 
quiring equal  skill  and  training  in  the 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


region.  In  short,  we  are  satisfied  that 
upon  the  proof,  as  it  shall  be  developed 
before  the  commission,  it  cannot  fail  to 
ultimately  find  that  there  is  no  manual 
employment  requiring  so  little  special 
training  or  skill,  the  expenditure  of  so 
little  physical  energy,  the  exposure  to  so 
little  risk  of  health  or  life,  and  the  occu- 
pation of  so  small  a portion  of  the  work- 
ing day,  which  is  so  liberally  compen- 
sated in  wages  as  the  work  of  the  an- 
thracite miner.  In  this  connection,  we 
shall  show  that  the  employment  is  net 
extra  hazardous  and  is  more  than  ordi- 
narily' healthful. 

As  bearing  upon  the  condition  of  a 1 
classes  of  the  employes  of  the  company, 
we  shall  offer  statements  showing  the 
large  number  of  them  who  own  real  es- 
tate, its  estimated  value,  and  a large 
number  cf  photographs,  indiscriminately 
selected,  of  homes  owned  by  the  em- 
ployes. 

We  shall  further  show  that  the  em- 
ployes of  the  company  are  not  a shifting 
class,  remaining  for  many  years  in  the 
same  employment,  and  that  their  children 
continue  in  the  employ  of  the  company 
rather  than  go  into  other  branches  of 
iabor;  and  when,  as  during  the  last 
strike,  they  seek  temporary  employmert 
elsewhere,  they  immediately  return  to  re- 
sume their  former  positions. 

No  Complaints  Ever  Made. 

As  bearing  upon  the  third  demand  of 
the  miners  for  the  weighing  of  coal  and 
the  payment  by  the  ton  for  mining,  we 
shall  show  that  for  many'  y'ears  this  com- 
pany has  paid  at  some  of  its  mines  by 
weight  and  at  others  by  the  car.  We 
shall  show  the  actual  product  in  market- 
able coal  of  units  of  weight  and  per  car, 
and  that  a practical  uniformity  of  wages 
results  from  both  systems.  We  shall 
show  that,  so  far  as  concerns  our  own 
employes,  no  complaint  has  ever  been 
made  directly'  to  the  company  that  either 
system  was  unfair  or  resulted  in  inade- 
quate or  unequal  remuneration  for  the 
labor  actually  performed,  and  that,  con- 
sidering the  end  in  view  to  be  fair  and 
equal  remuneration  for  labor  actually 
performed,  there  is  no  occasion  for  any 
change  in  the  system  now  in  vogue, 
which  is  the  result  of  long  years  of  ex- 
perience and  adjustment,  and  that,  on  the 
contrary,  any  arbitrary  change  will  re- 
sult in  great  confusion  and  probable  dis- 
content. 

We  have  claimed  in  our  answer  that 
the  commission  cannot,  under  the  terms 
of  the  submission  of  the  issues  which  it 
is  to  pass  upon,  consider  the  fourth  de- 
mand submitted  by  the  complainants, 
viz.,  the  execution  of  an  agreement  with 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America, 
governing  the  wages  to  be  paid  and  the 
conditions  of  employment  of  its  em- 
ployes. Without  waiving  this  claim,  we 
shall  offer  testimony  in  addition  to  the 
evidence  already  before  the  commission, 
to  establish  the  undesirability  of  such  an 
agreement,  if  it  were  fairly  at  issue. 

Relations  Always  Peaceful. 

We  shall  show  that  the  relations  be- 
tween this  respondent  and  its  employes 
had  been  for  many  years  peaceful  and 
harmonious  until  they  were  disturbed  by 
machinations  of  the  officers  and  agents 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers:  that  the  ef- 
fect of  the  organization  of  its  employes 
in  that  association  has  been  to  create  a 
spirit  of  unrest,  discontent  and  hostility' 
upon  the  part  of  the  employes:  that  the 
discipline  which  is  essential  to  the  safe 
and  profitable  conduct  of  the  business 


has  been  very'  greatly  impaired;  that  sys- 
tematic efforts  have  been  made  to  force 
all  of  its  employes  into  the  organization, 
so  that  the  management  of  the  business 
might  be  put  absolutely  under  its  control; 
and  that,  in  many  instances,  to  further 
the  designs  of  the  organization,  the  effi- 
ciency and  productive  capacity  of  the 
men  has  been  voluntarily  diminished. 

We  shall  further  show  that  the  organ- 
ization does  not  exercise  adequate  con- 
trol over  its  membership,  if  indeed  it  has 
any  desire  to  control  it,  and  that  during 
the  period  since  the  resumption  of  work 
in  October  last,  in  spite  of  the  pitiful 
need  of  a supply  of  coal  to  relieve  the 
necessities  of  the  public,  our  employes 
have  voluntarily  abstained  from  work 
during  a considerable  portion  of  the  time 
when  they  might  have  worked,  thus  ma- 
terially diminishing  the  capacity  of  the 
company  to  supply  coal  to  the  public. 

As  bearing  upon  the  sociological  condi- 
tions of  the  anthracite  regions,  we  shall 
offer  testimony  supplementary'  to  the 
facts  observed  by  the  commission  itself, 
as  to  the  number  of  saloons  in  the  im- 
mediate vicinity  of  our  collieries,  and  as 
to  other  matters  bearing  upon  moral 
conditions  which  may  be  supposed  to  af- 
fect the  earning  capacity  of  the  men. 

Although  a number  of  our  employes 
were  called  and  examined  upon  the  part 
of  the  Mine  Workers,  it  is  not  thought 
necessary  to  occupy'  the  time  of  the  com- 
mission by  any'  considerable  evidence  in 
rebuttal.  With  a few  exceptions,  the  ap- 
parent purpose  of  that  testimony'  was  to 
prove  discrimination  upon  the  part  of  the 
company  in  the  re-employment  of  its 
men  after  the  strike. 

Testimony  of  Mr.  Rose. 

Mr.  Rose  was  then  called  to  the  stand 
and  after  telling,  in  response  to  Mr. 
Torrey’s  questions,  that  he  was  a divis- 
ion engineer  for  the  Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  company  for  fif- 
teen years,  and  superintendent  of  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  mine  department 
for  seven  years,  was  examined  sub- 
stantially as  follows: 

By'  Mr.  Torrey: 

Q.  Prior  to  1900.  had  there  been  any 
changes  in  the  wages  paid  to  any  class 
of  your  employ'es,  except  trivial  local  re- 
adjustments, while  you  were  superin- 
tendent? A.  There  was  no  change  mater- 
ially. Q.  Did  you  hear  of  any  general 
discontent,  among  you  employes,  prior  to 
tions  of  employment?  A.  I did  not. 
tions  of  employment?  A I dod  not. 

Q.  What  method  of  payment  of  con- 
tract miners  was  in  vogue  when  you  be- 
came superintendent;  how  did  you  deal 
with  your  contract  miners?  A They  were 
paid  by  weight  and  paid  by  car.  Q.  Just 
discriminate;  tell  us  where?  A.  From 
Jermyn  colliery  to  the  northern  end  of 
our  coal  field  they  were  paid  by  weight, 
and  from  the  Jermyn  colliery'  to  Provi- 
dence they  were  paid  by'  the  car;  they 
were  paid  by  weight  to  Providence — from 
Providence  north,  paid  by  weight,  and 
from  Providence  south,  paid  by  the  car. 

Q.  What  unit  of  weight  was  adopted 
for  the  miners’  ton  when  you  came  into 
the  employment  of  the  company?  A. 
From  Providence  to  Jermyn,  including 
Jermyn,  paid  twenty-eight  hundr<  d 
weight:  from  Jermyn  north,  twenty-eight 
hundred  and  a half  weight.  Q.  Will  y ou 
tell  us  if  there  were  any  changes  in  those 
weights  while  you  were  superintended, 
and,  if  so,  explain?  A.  There  was  only 
one  change  made — at  Carbondale,  I think; 
that  was  twenty-seven  hundred  and  a 


half.  That  was  changed  because  the  col- 
lieries were  consolidated,  the  collieries  all 
brought  in  together;  previous  to  that 
they  had  been  making  lump  coal,  and 
that  was  cut  off. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  whether  there  was 
to  your  knowledge,  before  the  demand  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  were  formu- 
lated in  1900,  any  dissatisfaction  among 
your  employes  with  those  methods  of 
payment,  or  complaint  as  to  the  methods 
of  payment,  either  by  the  car  or  weight? 
A.  None  that  I know  of.  Q.  Whether  or 
not,  in  your  opinion,  those  methods,  and 
on  the  rates  that  were  paid  by  the  car 
or  ton,  accomplished  a substanial  uni- 
formity of  earning  capacity?  A.  I think 
they  did. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  time  when  the 
United  Mine  Workers  came  into  the  re- 
gion, or  the  beginning  of  the  strike  of 
1900?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  your  impression  that  your 
employes  were  very  largely  members  of 
that  organization  before  the  strike?  A. 
T think  there  were  not  many  of  them 
members  before  that  strike. 

Q.  What  had  been  the  general  rela- 
tionship as  to  peace  and  harmony  be- 
tween the  officers  of  the  company  and  its 
employes  prior  to  that  strike,  or  the 
years  that  you  were  superintendent?  A. 
There  was  nothing  but  cordial  feeling  be- 
tween the  employes,  foremen  and  super- 
intendent. 

Q.  After  the  strike  of  1900  you  under- 
stood that  your  employes  generally  joined 
the  United  Mine  Workers,  did  you  not? 
A.  Yes,  sir,  I think  they  did.  Q.  Will  you 
tell  us  whether  there  was  any  change  in 
the  pleasent  relations  which  you  have 
spoken  of  after  that?  A.  Well,  after  that 
there  seemed  to  be  more  or  less  discon- 
tent. 

Q.  How  did  it  show  Itself;  how  about 
the  discipline  of  the  mines?  A.  We  lost 
a certain  amount  of  discipline,  and  were 
not  able  to  control  our  men  and  conduct 
our  work  as  we  used  to  do. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear,  during  your  con- 
nections with  those  two  coal  companies, 
of  any  such  thing  as  a blacklist  adopted 
by  the  companies?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  send  the  names  of  any 
men  who  had  been  in  your  employ  to 
any  other  company,  or  companies,  in  any 
way,  directly  or  indirectly,  as  a sugges- 
tion that  they  should  not  be  employed 
by  them?  A.  Never  did  anything  of  the 
kind. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  such  names 
yourself  from  any  other  company  or 
operators?  A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  to  what  extent,  If 
any,  you  and  other  employes  and  opera- 
tors, so  far  as  you  are  familiar  with  their 
methods,  inquired  into  the  prior  rela- 
tions of  employes  who  came  to  you  for 
employment,  with  their  former  employers, 
as  to  their  having  been  acceptable  or 
agreeable  to  their  employers;  whether 
you  made  such  inquiries?  A.  We  had 
very  few  such  cases,  but  those  we  had 
we  did  not  go  into  any  detailed  inquiry 
about  any  of  them.  Q.  You  say  you  had 
very  few  such  cases;  why  was  that?  A. 
We  generally  promoted  our  own  men 
where  we  could  possibly  do  it.  Q.  All 
cases  of  skilled  employment  were  filled 
by  promotion?  A.  Yes. 

By  the  Acting  Chairman: 

Q.  I would  like  to  ask  a question.  You 
have  testified  there  was  no  blacklist; 
will  you  please  give  me  your  definition  of 
a blacklist?  A.  I suppose  a blacklist 
means  men  that  are  discharged,  and  the 
companies  who  employ  like  labor  are  no- 
tified to  that  effect.  For  instance,  an 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

employe  is  discharged,  working  for  a 
corporation,  and  the  corporations  in  the 
same  business  are  notified  of  this  man’s 
dismissal. 

Q.  You  do  not  keep  any  such  list  as 
that  yourself?  A.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  Clark: 

Q.  Suppose  a man  was  liable  to  leave 
the  service  for  any  cause,  would  there  be 
a list  kept?  A.  I am  not  familiar  with 
anything  of  that  kind  whatever;  any 
blacklist  I never  had  anything  to  do 
'with. 

Commissioner  Spalding;  Have  you  ever 
been  notified  by  any  other  companies  that 
they  discharged  their  men?  A.  No.  sir. 

By  Mr.  Torrey: 

Q.  Except  in  the  case  of  ordinary  man- 
ual labor  of  the  lower  grades  are  your 
employes  of  a shifting  class;  do  they 
move  from  one  place  to  another?  A.  Not 
very  much  as  a rule.  Q.  How  are  they, 
stationary?  A.  They  seem  to  be  wedded 
to  the  old  place.  Q.  Does  it  give  you  any 
annoyance  sometimes?  A.  We  would  like 
very  much,  for  instance,  if  we  have  a 
breakdown  or  fire  in  the  mines,  or  any- 
thing of  that  sort  that  necessitates  the 
idleness  of  that  mine,  we  would  like  to 
have  them  go  to  some  other  place  and 
work  for  us,  but  invariably  they  will  not 
do  it,  they  simply  wait  until  the  place  is 
fixed  up.  A.  How  about  their  children, 
do  they  move  out  of  the  region  very 
largely?  A.  Well,  I couldn’t  say  positive- 
ly about  that;  I think  they  are  inclined 
to  remain  there. 

By  Commissioner  Clark: 

Q.  In  connection  with  that  disposition 
to  stick  to  the  old  place,  if  you  have  a 
fire  in  a mine,  or  breakdown,  that  tem- 
porarily disables  that  property,  throws 
men  out  of  employment,  is  it  a general 
thing  for  them  to  come  back  to  that 
property  when  it  is  in  order  to  work 
again?  A.  Yes.  Q.  After  two,  three  or 
four  months’  idleness?  A.  I think  it  is, 
sir. 

Mr.  Torrey:  I think  what  the  witness 

says  is,  for  two,  or  three,  or  four  months 
they  generally  sit  still  and  wait  for  it. 

Commissioner  Clark:  Whether  they  sit 

still,  or  receive  temporary  work  else- 
where, they  come  back? 

Mr.  Torrey:  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Torrey: 

Q.  Did  the  company  ever  have  a com- 
pany store  to  your  knowledge?  A.  No, 
sir.  Q.  Employ  any  company  doctor?  A. 
No,  sir.  Q.  How  do  they  pay  their  men, 
in  what  sort  of  currency?  A.  They  pay 
them  in  the  usual  way,  in  cash.  Q.  Very 
regularly?  A.  Very  regularly.  Q.  It  be- 
gins on  the  first  day  of  the  month  to  pay 
for  the  preceding  two  weeks,  and  on  the 
16th  for  the  preceding  two  weeks,  and 
keeps  from  one  mine  to  the  other  until  he 
pays  all?  A.  I think  that  is  about  the 
way  it  is  done;  he  is  paying  all  the 
time. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  a benefit 
to  the  miners  to  have  a weekly  pay?  A.  I 
think  it  is  not  a benefit.  Q.  Why?  A. 
Simply  lose  more  time.  Q.  Has  there  been 
an  increase  in  the  loss  of  time  by  reason 
of  the  adoption  of  the  semi-monthly  pay? 
A.  I think  there  is  .Q.  To  what  extent 
would  you  say?  A.  They  lost  just  about 
twice  as  much  time  as  they  did  when 
they  had  the  monthly  pay.  Q.  About  how 
long  is  the  breaker  able  to  work  on  pay 
days,  as  a rule?  A.  Not  over  half  a day; 
about  half  a day.  Q.  So  that  they  lose 
two  half  days  a month  instead  of  one? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  make  any  deductions  from 
the  pay  of  your  men,  except  for  the  mine 


127 


supplies,  powder  and  that  sort  of  thing 
and  rents  where  you  rent  to  them?  A. 
We  do  not.  Q.  Everything  else  is  paid 
for  in  cash?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  you  who  had  a little  experi- 
ence with  Mr.  Rittenhouse,  who  was  a 
witness  here  for  the  miners?  A.  Mr.  Ric- 
tenhouse  called  on  me  and  desired  we 
should  collect  some  bills,  grocery  bills 
from  our  men.  Q.  What  did  you  tell  him? 
A.  I told  him  we  were  not  in  the  habit 
of  doing  anything  of  that  sort;  didn't 
consider  we  had  any  businss  to  do  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Rose,  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
late  strike  you  received  a letter  from  the 
president  of  the  company,  did  you  not? 
(Presenting  letter  to  the  witness)  I show 
you  this  letter  and  ask  you  if  that  is  a 
letter  you  received  immediately  upon  the 
conclusion  of  the  strike?  A.  Yes,  sir;  it 
is. 

Mr.  Torrey:  I would  like  to  read  this 

letter,  Mr.  Darrow. 

Mr.  Darrow:  All  right. 

Mr.  Torrey  (reading); 

“Office  of  the  President. 

"The  Delaware  and  Hudson  Company. 

“New  York,  October  21,  1902. 
“C.  C.  Rose,  esq..  Superintendent. 

“Dear  Sir:  The  ‘strike  is  ended,’  so  the 
message  reads.  Now  to  sum  up: 

“First — We  are  to  stand  by  the  men  who 
have  stood  by  us:  but  caution  them 

against  any  intemperance  of  language  or 
threats  to  others.  In  other  words,  if  they 
‘are  reviled,  revile  not  again.’  It  takes 
two  parties  to  make  a fight. 

“Second — Make  allowances,  so  far  as 
possible,  for  men  who  are  coming  back 
and  treat  them  kindly  on  their  return. 
Give  a good  welcome.  They  are  not  all 
bad  who  are  misled. 

Third — If  more  men  return  than  can  be 
employed  at  once  a fair  selection  should 
be  made. 

“Fourth— Gross  agitators  and  men  who 
are  known  to  have  been  guilty  of  crime 
cannot  be  employed. 

“Fifth— You  should  instruct  your  fore- 
man to  act  discreetly  and  by  fair  dealing 
try  to  regain  the  good  Will  and  re-estab- 
lish kindly  feelings  towards  the  men  un- 
der him. 

“Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)  “R.  M.  Olyphant,  President.” 

Q.  Mr.  Rose,  did  you  govern  yourself 
in  accordance  with  those  instructions?  A. 
I tried  to. 

The  Cross-Examination. 

This  concluded  the  direct  examina- 
tion of  Mr.  Rose.  The  cross-examina- 
tion was  conducted  by  Mr.  Darrow  and 
was  quite  exhaustive.  President  Mitch- 
ell and  every  one  of  the  five  commis- 
sioners present  also  questioned  Mr. 
Rose. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  Now,  you  say  up  to  the  time  thac 
the  United  Mine  Workers  put  in  an  ap- 
pearance in  that  district  you  never  heard 
of  any  discontent  among  the  men.  is  that 
true?  A.  That  is  what  I said. 

Q.  Is  it  true?  A.  I don't  know  how  true 
it  is;  that  is  my  belief?  Q.  You  know 
whether  you  heard  of  any? 

Mr.  Torrey:  I said  general  discontent 
in  my  question?  A.  I did  not. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  He  says  discontent  now;  but  still  we 
will  go  into  it  and  give  him  a fair  show. 
When  did  the  United  Mine  Workers  put 
in  an  appearance,  so  far  as  you  know? 
A.  I think  about  1900. 

Q.  Now,  to  make  sure,  do  you  say  that 
up  to  1900  you  never  heard  of  any  com- 


128 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


plaint  from  your  men  or  boys  as  to 
wages  or  hours  or  conditions  of  work? 
A.  I don’t  recall  any  now.  Q.  Not  one? 
A.  There  might  possibly  have  been  one. 
Q.  Not  half  a dozen?  A.  I don’t  think 
there  was  half  a dozen.  Q.  In  five  years? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  complaints 
about  docking  previous  to  1900?  Q.  I don’t 
recall  any  now. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  complaints 
that  wages  were  too  low?  A.  Not  any 
extended  complaints. 

O.  Mr.  Rose,  you  think  the  men  are 
getting  too  much  now,  do  you  not?  A.  I 
have  not  expressed  myself  that  way.  Q. 
Well,  what  do  you  think?  A.  I think 
thev  are  getting  fair  wages,  as  compared 
with  other  people. 

Q.  They  are  getting  ten  per  cent,  mo-e 
than  they  did  before  the  United  Mine 
Workers  created  the  distrubance  among 
your  employes,  are  they  not?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  Q.  Besides  that,  they  are  gett’ng 
twelve  per  cent,  more  work,  on  account 
of  market  conditions,  than  they  were  two 
years  ago,  are  they  not?  A.  Well,  I 
think  perhaps  they  are.  Q.  And  you 
think  they  were  getting  enough  two 
years  ago?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  So  they  must  be  getting  som» 
twenty  or  twenty-two  per  cent,  too  much 
now,  according  to  your  reasoning?  A. 
No,  sir:  I do  not  think  they  are. 

As  to  the  Firemen. 

Questioned  about  the  firemen,  Mr.  • 
Rose  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  $1.76 
per  day  for  twelve  hours  work,  with  a 
twenty-four  hour  shift  every  other 
Sunday,  was  a fair  wage.  The  job  is 
one  of  the  most  generally  sought  after 
of  any  about  the  mines,  he  said. 

Referring  to  the  1900  strike  again,  Mr. 
Darrow  said: 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  ten  per  cent,  raise 
in  1900  was  fair,  or  do  you  not?  A.  Well, 

I do  not  know  but  what  it  is  all  right. 

I did  not  think  so  at  the  time.  Q.  You 
did  not?  After  coming  to  think  it  over, 
you  may  think  it  is  all  right?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  that,  on  re-reflec- 
tion,  and  reconsideration,  if  we  got  a 
raise  at  this  time,  you  might  think  it 
was  all  right,  too,  Mr.  Rose,  to  be  honest 
about  it?  A.  I do  not  think  so,  under  the 
circumstances. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  never  could  be 
reconciled  to  it?  A.  Yes,  sir;  not  under 
the  circumstances. 

Payment  by  Weight. 

Regarding  payment  by  weight  or  by 
the  car,  Mr.  Rose  asserted  that  there 
was  no  complaint  against  either  method 
until  the  United  Mine  Workers  came  to 
the  region. 

Mr.  Rose  said  he  believed  the  miners 
had  a right  to  organize  if  they  wanted 
to,  but  he  didn’t  believe  in  the  United 
Mine  Workers  because  of  the  way  it 
has  conducted  itself. 

Mr.  Darrow  questioned  Mr.  Rose 
about  President  Olyphant’s  letter. 

Q.  Mr.  Rose,  the  men  who  went  out  on 
a strike,  in  your  opinion— and,  as  you  un- 
derstand it,  in  the  opinion  of  the  presi- 
dent— you  say  were  misled?  A.  I think 
they  were.  Q.  Yes.  They  were  misled,  I 
take  it,  by  agitators  and  gross  agitato  s, 
were  they  not?  A.  No  doubt  of  it. 

Q.  Those  men  you  were  authorized  by 
'•our  president  not  to  re-employ,  were  you 
not?  A.  The  gross  agitators  and  crimi- 


nals. Q.  So  neither  class  was  to  be  re- 
employed?  A.  So  the  letter  states.  Q. 
Well,  did  you  follow  it  out?  A.  I took 
back  some  that  I considered  ought  to  b - 
kept  out.  Q.  Because  they  were  gross 
agitators?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  you  left 
out  others  who  were  gross  agitators.  A 
Yes,  sir;  but  not  on  that  account. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  out  any  person,  sir. 
who  was  not  prosecuted  and  convicted  of 
crime?  A.  I think  some  of  them  were 
left  out.  Q.  Yes;  can  you  give  the 
names?  A.  No,  sir.  Q.  You  left  them  out 
because  they  were  hostile  to  the  com- 
pany, did  you  not?  A.  No,  sir.  Q.  Frr 
what,  then?  A.  I did  not  need  their  ser- 
vices. or  else  their  places  were  filled. 

Q.  You  do  not  mean  to  swear  to  thi* 
commission  that  you  did  not  leave  out 
any  of  these  men  because  they  were 
trross  agitators,  do  you — any  of  them?  A. 
We  left  out  some  because  their  places 
were  filled.  We  left  out  others  because 
we  had  more  men  than  we  wanted.  Seme 
of  them  have  been  reinstated.  Q.  Did  you 
leave  out  any  one  man  because  he  was 
a gross  agitator,  in  obedience  to  the  let- 
ter of  the  president.  A.  I could  not  sav 
positively  whether  I did  or  not— whether 
thev  are  out  or  not. 

President  Mitchell  Asks  Questions. 

President  Mitchell  at  this  juncture 
took  up  the  cross-examination  of  Mr. 
Rose  on  some  technical  matters  and 
general  conditions. 

Q.  Mr.  Rose,  I would  like  to  ask  if 
vour  companv  did  not  change  their 
method  of  driving  their  breasts  after  the 
close  of  the  1900  strike?  In  other  words, 
did  they  not  change  the  track  or  road 
from  the  middle  of  the  breast  to  one  sid° 
of  the  rib.  or  to  one  side  of  the  breast? 
A.  I could  not  say  as  to  what  time . 

O.  But  the  roadway  was  put  in  along 
close  to  one  of  the  ribs  instead  of  in  the 
center  of  the  breast,  as  was  the  custom 
of  the  district?  A.  In  that  red  ash  vein 
we  did  adopt  that  system.  Q.  Well.  Mr. 
Rose,  was  not  that  eciuivalent  to  a re- 
duction in  the  earning  power  of  the  men? 
A.  I think  not. 

O.  By  changing  the  roadwav  from  the 
°enter  of  the  breast  to  the  side  of  it,  it 
became  necessary  for  the  miners  to 
throw  all  the  refuse  or  rock  from  one 
side  to  the  other,  did  it  not?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  O.  And  under  the  system  of  having 
the  roadway  in  the  center  of  the  breast, 
they  could  gob  it  on  both  sides  of  the 
track?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And  it  necessarily 
followed  that  that  required  more  work 
on  the  part  of  the  miners?  A.  It  did  in 
some  respects;  in  others,  it  did  not. 

O.  Well,  where  it  did,  was  there  any 
additional  compensation  given  the  miners 
for  it?  A.  Well,  it  was  so  trifling  that 
we  paid  no  attention  to  it. 

O.  Do  you  not  remember  that  it  was  si 
imnortant  that  the  miners  threatened  to 
strike  in  order  to  have  the  system 
changed  back  to  the  center  of  the  breast? 
A I do  not  know  that  they  threatened  to 
strike;  they  talked  about  it.  Q.  Do  you 
know  that  it  was  the  officers  of  the 
T,nlted  Mine  Workers  of  America  that 
prevented  them  from  striking.  A.  I do 
not. 

Q.  There  is  one  more  thing  I would  like 
to  ask  you.  Mr.  Rose.  The  method  of 
rai  ment,  in  your  company,  is  to  pa'’  the 
contract  miner  the  earnings  of  himself 
and  his  laborers?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  Ts  it 
not  true  that  the  miners  petitioned  your 
company  to  make  the  division  of  the  pay 
in  the  office  between  the  miner  and  the 
laborer?  A.  I think  there  was  one  place 


where  that  request  was  made;  I think 
that  was  last  spring. 

Q.  Do  you  know,  Mr.  Rose,  that  under 
our  present  method  of  payment,  it  is 
almost  a matter  of  necessity  that  the 
miners  go  into  the  saloons  to  get  their 
money  changed,  in  order  to  divide  it  up 
between  the  miner  and  the  laborer?  A. 
Well,  I could  not  say  where  they  go; 
hut  I have  understood  that  that  was  the 
first  place  they  started  for,  and  that  they 
divided  up  their  earnings  there — paid 
their  men  there. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Rose,  I know  this  to  be 
true;  I know  it  from  officers  of  your 
company  that  it  is  the  desire  of  the  com- 
pany to  improve  the  moral  surrounding- 
of  your  employes.  A.  I think  we  made 
an  effort  in  that  direction.  Q.  But  do  you 
not  think  that  by  making  the  division  of 
♦his  pay  in  the  office,  you  would  do  more 
to  improve  the  moral  surroundings  of  the 
miners  than  any  other  one  thing?  A 
Well.  I think  it  might  help  out.  Q.  It 
would  not  make  it  necessary  for  the 
miners  to  go  to  the  saloons  to  change 
their  money?  A.  Well.  I do  not  think  it 
is  necessary  now.  Q.  But  they  do  it?  A. 
Well,  I presume  they  do. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Rose,  I want  to  ask  you 
about  another  method.  The  system  of 
vour  company  is  not  to  give  your  breaker 
boys  or  door  boys  a statement  of  the 
amount  they  earn?  A.  We  never  have 
given  them  any  due  bills.  I presume  you 
refer  to  due  bills?  Q.  Yes.  sir.  A.  We  have 
never  given  any  except  the  miner  a di  e 
bill.  Q.  When  the  boys  go  to  get  their 
pay,  they  simply  go  to  the  office  and  get 
it?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  With  no  statement  of 
the  amount  they  have  earned?  A.  That 
is  right.  Q.  Do  you  not  think  that  that 
system  is  an  incentive  for  small  boys  to 
be  dishonest?  A.  I could  not  say  as  to 
that. 

By  Commissioner  Watkins: 

Q.  Is  there  not  a statement  of  any  kind 
furnished  them?  A.  We  do  not  furni  h 
anyone  except  the  miner  a due  bill.  He 
can  go  to  the  office  and  find  out.  Q.  Is 
the  money  handed  to  them  in  an  envel- 
ope? A.  I think  it  invariably  is.  It  is 
sometimes  handed  to  the  boy’s  father  or 
mother.  Q.  Do  you  not  put  some  state- 
ment on  the  envelope?  A Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Parker: 

Q.  Mr.  Rose,  in  your  cashier's  office, 
where  the  men  are  paid  off,  can  or  can- 
not the  miners  get  their  money  changed 
to  divide  -with  their  laborers?  Cannot 
the  cashier  make  change  for  them?  A. 
They,  have  never  requested  anything  of 
that  kind.  Q.  They  could  get  it  if  they 
asked  for  it,  could  they  not?  A I thi  k 
we  would  make  arrangemetns  if  they  so 
desired. 

By  Mr.  Mitchell: 

Q.  But,  Mr.  Rose,  they  have  asked  the 
company  to  make  the  arrangement  for 
them,  and  the  company  has  refused.  A. 
Not  all  of  them:  only  in  one  place.  Q. 
But  it  was  not  granted  there,  was  it?  A. 
No.  sir. 

Q.  Well,  I think  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
they  would  have  been  refused  at  other 
places.  A.  Well.  I might  say.  Mr.  Mit- 
chell. if  you  desire  me  to  do  so.  that  I 
think  our  men  rfre  as  moral  and.  as  re- 
ligious as  those  of  any  other  mining  cor- 
poration that  carries  out  your  views  that 
you  are  endeavoring  to  have  me  apnreve 
of.  Q.  Well.  I do  not  question  that.  M»\ 
Rose:  but  your  company  has  said  re- 
peatedly, and  I believe  it  to  be  true  .and 
I say  it  earnestly  to  youl  that  you  want 
to  improve  the  moral  condition  of  your 
employes.  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  a system  at  your  mines 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


129 


that  encourages  men  at  least  to  enter 
the  saloons,  to  get  their  money  changed 
to  make  the  division  between  the  miners 
and  the  laborers.  Now,  when  men  go 
into  a saloon  to  have  money  changed,  the 
chances  are  that  they  are  going  to  spend 
part  of  it,  because  the  saloon-keeper  is 
not  going  to  make  change  for  them  un- 
less he  expects  them  to  leave  part  of  it 
there. 

Marketable  Coal. 

In  response  to  questions  by  Commis- 
sioner Watkins,  the  witness  said  the 
company  does  not  get  2,240  pounds  of 
marketable  coal  out  of  the  3,136  pounds 
of  material  the  miner  is  required  to 
furnish  as  a ton.  His  recollection  was 
that  the  company  gets  only  8-10  of  a 
ton  of  prepared  sizes  out  of  the  3,136 
pounds,  and  barely  2,240  pounds  of  fuel, 
including  buckwheat  and  pea  coal.  The 
original  agreement  was,  he  said,  that 
the  company  should  get  2,240  pounds 
of  coal  above  the  size  of  pea. 

President  Mitchell  secured  an  admis- 
sion later  that  pea  coal  is  now  quite  as 
marketable  as  any  size,  which  was  not 
the  case  when  the  agreement  was  made 
a quarter  of  a century  ago. 

Mr.  Rose,  answering  Commissioner 
Watkins,  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that 
payment  by  the  cubic  or  lineal  yard,  as 
is  done  in  the  Schuylkill  region,  could 
not  be  practiced  in  the  northern  coal 
fields.  Commissioner  Watkins  brought 
out  the  fact  that  the  company  makes 
no  deductions  for  idle  spells  if  the  men 
are  kept  at  the  colliery. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked: 

Q.  In  your  opinion  could  your  company 
in  1900  have  afforded  to  pay  a higher  rate 
of  wages  than  they  were  then  paying, 
without  receiving  a higher  price  for  coal 
in  the  market?  A.  Well,  as  to  that  I do 
not  know  as  they  could  afford  to  pay  any 
more  wages.  But  about  that  time  we  en- 
tered on  an  era  of  prosperity  that  changed 
things  materially. 

Q.  Was  your  opinion  as  to  the  rate  of 
wages  influenced  somewhat  by  the  price 
obtained  for  your  product?  A.  Why,  most 
certainly. 

Q.  So  that  if  it  was  possible  to  receive 
a higher  price  for  your  coal,  you  might 
have  thought  it  advisable  to  raise  the 
rate  of  wages?  A.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  the 
way  I meant. 

Q.  Have  you  had  plenty  of  labor  during 
the  last  two  or  three  years  to  work  your 
collieries  to  the  full  capacity?  A.  I might 
say  in  some  cases  we  have  not;  in  other 
cases  we  have  not  been  able  to  influence 
our  men  that  we  had  to  work  longer 
hours,  put  in  more  time,  earn  more 
money.  They  seemed  to  be  inclined,  af- 
ter they  had  worked  a certain  length  of 
time,  they  did  not  care  for  any  more 
hours,  did  not  care  for  any  more  earnings, 

Adjusting  Grievances. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  about 
the  system  of  adjusting  grievances. 
Mr.  Rose  said  there  were  practically  no 
grievances  to  adjust  prior  to  1900.  Since 
that  time  there  have  been  some.  The 
company  directed  the  men  to  take  up 
their  differences  with  the  local  superin- 
tendent and  if  they  failed  to  agree, 
then  the  matter  was  to  be  taken  to  the 
general  superintendent. 

A statement  by  Mr.  Rose  that  he  had 
talked  with  District  President  Nicholls 


about  settling  some  local  strikes, 
brought  from  Commissioner  Clark  the 
remark:  “You  talked  it  over  with  him 

after  the  strike  occurred,  but  would  not 
talk  it  oveb  with  him  before  the  strike 
occurred.” 

Questions  by  Commissioner  Wright 
brought  a statement  from  Mr.  Rose 
that  the  company  does  not  unnecessar- 
ily restrict  the  miners’  capacity.  It  is 
to  the  company’s  advantage,  he  said,  to 
supply  the  miner  with  all  the  cars  he 
will  take.  Sometimes  this  cannot  be 
done  regularly  on  account  of  accidents. 
An  assertion  by  Mr.  Rose  that  the 
miners’  union  restricts  the  output  by 
limiting  the  number  of  cars  a miner 
may  send  out,  brought  Mr.  Mitchell  to 
his  feet. 

By  Mr.  Mitchell: 

Q.  What  mine  is  there  under  your  com- 
pany in  which  the  union  has  changed  the 
restrictions  on  the  number  of  cars  the 
miner  is  allowed  to  send  out?  A.  I think 
a majority  of  them.  Q.  Will  you  tell  us 
one  of  them?  A.  In  the  Lancaster  mine 
a miner  used  to  mine  seven,  eight  and 
nine  cars  a day  and  now  it  is  down  to  six. 
Q.  Are  there  any  others?  A.  I cannot  re- 
call any  others  now.  I remember  that  one 
because  the  advantage  was  so  plain  to  the 
man  that  it  was  very  noticeable. 

Q:  I would  like  to  ask  you  whether  with 
the  change  in  the  cars  the  removal  of  the 
small  cars  and  the  introduction  of  the 
larger  ones  hase  been  going  on  gradually 
in  all  the  mines,  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  miners  are  loading  more  coal  now  than 
before  the  advent  of  the  union?  A.  The 
cars  have  not  been  enlarged;  they  are 
same  size  as  they  were  bfore.  Q.  You 
hav  said  yourself  about  increasing  the 
price  because  of  the  larger  car  being  in- 
troduced? A.  No,  I said  there  hadn't 
been  any  of  the  cars  enlarged.  I might 
modify  that  and  say  that  no  cars  have 
been  enlarged  where  they  paid  by  the 
car.  There  have  been  some  enlarged 
"where  they  paid  by  the  ton.  Q.  That 
would  not  make  any  difference,  that 
would  mean  more  coal — A.  They  simply 
load  less  cars  where  the  cars  are  larger; 
where  they  used  to  load  six  cars,  they 
now  load  only  four  cars  of  the  larger  size. 

Company  Does  Mot  Employ  Laborer. 

Mr.  Torrey  adduced  the  explanation 
that  the  company  does  not  pay  the 


The  matter  of  the  company  provid- 
ing means  for  the  miner  paying  his 
laborer  without  going  to  the  saloon, 
provoked  questioning  by  Bishop  Spald- 
ing. 

By  Commissioner  Spalding: 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  you  ought  to  do 
that?  A.  If  they  ask  it,  we  will. 

Q.  Even  if  they  do  not  ask  it,  to  save 
them  the  pretext  for  going  into  a saloon? 

A.  Yes,  that  would  stop  it. 

Q.  Even  if  it  stopped  a few  it  would  be 
a good  thing? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I am  willing  to  do  anything 
possible  to  keep  them  out  of  the  saloons. 

When  Mr.  Rose  was  excused,  Mr. 
Darrow  asked  leave  to  call  Richard  J. 
Beamish,  of  the  North  American,  to 
contradict  General  Gobin’s  testimony  of 
the  day  before  regarding  the  interview 
anent  the  “shoot  to  kill”  order' and  the 
alleged  forgery  of  Colonel  Clements' 
name  to  a telegram  stopping  a troop 
train  that  the  reporter  might  board  it, 
but  as  the  non-union  men's  attorneys, 
who  had  called  General  Gobin,  had  gone 
home,  General  Wilson  ruled  that  Mr. 
Beamish’s  testimony  would  have  to  be 
heard  later,  when  they  return. 

Comptroller  Culver’s  Testimony. 

Comptroller  Culver,  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company,  next  went  on  the 
stand  and  began  the  presentation  of 
the  company’s  detailed  statistics. 

The  distribution  of  wages  between 
miners  and  laborers  had  been  arrived 
at,  he  explained,  by  inquiry  among  the 
bosses  as  to  how  many,  if  any,  laborers 
the  miner  employed  and  tnen  figuring 
on  the  basis  that  the  laborer  gets  one- 
third  of  the  gross  earnings.  He  pre- 
sented six  illustrations  of  how  the  mat- 
ter was  worked  out. 

The  most  important  of  the  many 
tables  presented  was  one  compiled  in  a 
form  suggested  by  the  commission.  In- 
stead of  only  averaging  wages,  it  classi- 
fies and  averages.  It  includes  the  earn- 
ings of  every  contract  miner  for  the 
year  1901  from  the  man  who  got  eight 
cents  (an  actual  case)  to  the  one  whose 
earnings  ran  up  to  nearly  $2,000.  The 
table  is  appended: 


Classified  Miners’  Net  Earnings  for  December,  1902. 


Class 

Number 

of 

Miners 

Range  of  Class 

Average  Earn- 
ings of  Miners 
in  1901 

AVERAGE 

Number 

of 

Miners 

Earnings 
of  Miners 
in  1901 

1 

230 

$1,000  & over 

$1,471.54 

2 

113 

900-1000 

943.53 

1 & 2 Class 

343  $1,297.60 

3 

245 

800-  900 

845.48 

1,  2 & 3 Class 

5SS 

1.109.21 

4 

282 

700-  800 

747.92 

1,  2,  3 & 4 Class 

870 

992.10 

5 

566 

600-  700 

644.89 

1,  2,  3,  4 & 5 Class 

1,436 

855,25 

6 

542 

500-  600 

551.24 

* 1,  2,  3,  4,  5 & 6 Class 

1,978 

771.85 

7 

433 

400-  500 

451.07 

1,  2.  3,  4,  5,  6 & 7 Class 

2,411 

714.32 

8 

374 

300-  400 

352.30 

1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7 & 8 Class 

2,785 

665.70 

9 

391 

200-  300 

249.81 

1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7.  8 & 9 Class 

3,176 

614,50 

10 

1,117 

Less  than  200 

79.87 

1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9 & 10  Class 

4.293 

475.39 

miner’s  laborer  because  it  wishes  to 
avoid  liability  for  accidents  that  may 
befall  him,  as  a result  of  the  miner 
leaving  him  alone  after  the  miner  gets 
through  his  blasting.  The  laborer  is 
the  employe  of  the  miner  and  not  of 
the  company,  it  was  explained. 


The  average  was  diminished,  Mr.  Cul- 
ver explained,  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  names  of  employes  were  dupli- 
cated and  triplicated  because  of  their 
having  worked  in  different  positions  or 
at  different  collieries. 

The  difference  between  the  average  of 


130 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


$622.68  first  presented  and  the  average 
of  $475.39,  as  shown  in  the  above  table, 
was  accounted  for  by  Mr.  Culver  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  in  the  first  table 
he  excluded — as  mentioned  in  a foot- 
note— 517  men  who  averaged  less  than 
$40  a year,  and  some  260  duplications. 
In  the  second  table  every  miner  who 
earned  a penny  was  included  and  every 
duplication  was  counted  as  a separate 
man. 

Among  the  other  tables  presented  and 
explained  by  Mr.  Culver  was  one  show- 
ing idle  days  and  the  reasons  therefore. 
Summarized  it  was  as  follows: 

Total  days  lost  at  twenty-six  col- 


lieries, for  which  the  men  were 

not  responsible  807 

For  which  men  were  responsible...  346 

Repairs,  breakdowns,  etc 248 

Fire,  flood,  gas,  etc 370 

No  railroad  cars 73 

Picnics  and  holidays  other  than 

legal  holidays  115 

Mitchell  day  and  other  union  holi- 
days   59 

Strikes  and  suspensions 194 


Grand  total  1,229 


The  companies’  wage  tables  were 
summarized  in  The  Tribune  previously. 
A few  of  the  most  salient  features  are 
repeated : 

Total  amount  paid  to  miners 
after  deducting  supplies  in 

1901  $3,268,405  84 

Average  amount  paid  each 
miner  in  1901  (exclusive  of 

supplies)  1,072  15 

Approximate  daily  earnings 
of  miners  on  the  basis  of 

breaker  days  3 20 

Approximate  daily  earnings 
of  laborers  on  the  basis  of 

breaker  days  2 23 

Approximate  average  earn- 
ings in  1901  for  miner  622  68 


Approximate  average  earn- 
ings in  1901  for  laborer 449  47 

Men  employed  by  the  day  or 
month  during  1901  earned 

in  the  aggregate  2,076,353  00 

Boys  employed  by  the  day 
or  month  during  1901  earn- 
ed in  the  aggregate  425,636  13 

Average  number  of  days 
breakers  operated  in  1901..  191% 

Lost  time  in  1901  by  strikes 
and  holidays  other  than 
legal  holidays  an  average 

at  each  colliery  of  14.7  days 

Lost  time  in  1901  by  miners 
per  colliery  between  break- 
er starts  and  miner  starts 
an  average  for  each  miner 

of 15.75  days 

Total  average  time  lost  per 
colliery  adding  the  two 
above  together  30.45  days 


or  average  loss  of  earning 
capacity  of  16  2-3%. 

The  company  has  no  com- 
pany store  or  company 
doctor. 

Average  hours  worked  per 
day  of  ten  hours  by  min- 


ers   5% 

Average  hours  worked  per 
day  of  ten  hours  by  labor- 
ers   SV2 

Average  wages  of  company 

hands  $518  95 

Average  wages  of  boys  196  93 

Average  dockage  3.04% 

Average  earnings  of  fathers 
who  have  boys  working  in 

and  about  the  mines $539  49 

Per  cent,  of  employes  own- 
ing real  estate  29% 


Culver  Cross-Examined. 

Mr.  Culver,  on  cross-examination, 
challenged  the  accuracy  of  the  com- 
parisons made  by  Mr.  Mitchell  between 
soft  coal  workers  and  employes  of  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company.  Mr. 
Mitchell,  he  said,  had  depressed  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  figures,  and  the 


company  could  find  no  such  figures  in 
the  bituminous  regions  as  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell’s table  contained.  The  matter  was 
not  threshed  out,  as  the  Mitchell  table 
was  not  at  hand. 

Dr.  Weyl,  one  of  the  miners’  statis- 
ticians, was  entering  upon  a cross-ex- 
amination of  Mr.  Culver  when  it  was 
discovered  that  a table  on  which  he 
wanted  to  examine  was  not  in  shape, 
and  adjournment  was  had  until  Mon- 
day morning. 

Former  Chief  Justice  Paxson  was  a 
visitor  at  yesterday  afternoon's  session. 
He  came  alone  and  happened  to  take  a 
seat  near  your  correspondent.  He  was 
hardly  settled  in  his  chair  when  he 
leaned  over  and  asked  to  have  Mr. 
Mitchell  pointed  out.  For  nearly  half 
an  hour  the  aged  jurist  watched  the 
young  leader  intently.  An  offer  was 
made  to  point  out  the  different  com- 
missioners to  him,  but  he  shook  his 
head,  as  if  to  say  he  didn’t  come  to  see 
ordinary  people  like  Bishop  Spalding. 
General  Wilson  and  the  others.  He  was 
there  to  “have  a look”  at  Mitchell. 

Commissioner  Parker  was  also  ab- 
sent yesterday,  leaving  only  five  com- 
missioners. He  was  called  to  his  home 
in  Washington  by  a telegram  from  Mrs. 
Parker  announcing  that  it  was  impos- 
sible to  get  any  coal  and  the  family 
would  have  to  go  to  a hotel  if  coal  was 
not  procured  before  nightfall.  The 
commissioner  hurried  to  Washington  to 
scour  the  coal  yards  for  fuel  for  his 
perishing  household. 

President  Mitchell  came  within  an 
ace  of  experiencing  what  a coal  famine 
really  means.  The  hotel  at  which  he 
is  stopping  ran  out  of  fuel  and  the  last 
shovelful  was  in  the  furnace  when 
some  soft  coal  was  procured  by  the 
proprietor. 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Jan.  12. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  13.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  12. — Practically  all 
of  today  before  the  mine  strike  com- 
mission was  consumed  by  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company  in  presenting  evi- 
dence tending  to  show  diminution  of 
discipline  and  efficiency  and  restriction 
of  output  consequent  upon  the  advent 
of  the  miners’  "union. 

Unreasonable  strikes,  and  idleness, 
and  the  refusal  of  men  to  work  what 
the  company  considers  a fair  day, 
formed  the  burden  of  the  matters  tes- 
tified about.  In  several  instances,  it 
was  shown  that  the  union  restricted 
the  amount  of  work  the  men  might  do. 
Superintendent  Thomas,  of  the  Jermyn 
colliery,  presented  a resolution  passed 
by  the  local  threatening  to  expel  “head- 
ing men”  who  filled  more  than  their 
share  of  cars. 

Chief  Clerk  Anderson  presented  tabu- 
lations showing  the  loss  of  time  since 
the  close  of  the  strike — while  the  coal 
famine  was  on — which  loss  was  at- 
tributable to  the  union.  He  also  showed 


that  the  average  wage  of  men  who 
have  minor  sons  at  work  in  and  about 
the  collieries  is  $549  a year. 

General  Superintendent  Rose  and 
Comptroller  Culver  were  also  on  the 
stand  for  brief  periods. 

Judge  Gray,  chairman  of  the  commis- 
sion, is  seriously  ill  with  the  grip  and 
not  expected  to  be  about  for  a week. 


THE  MORNING  SESSION. 

Acting  Chairman  Wilson  Rejects  as 
Evidence  the  Opinion  of  Judge 
Hcydt. 

Acting  Chairman  Wilson  opened  the 
morning  session  by  announcing  that 
the  commission  hadi  decided  not  to  ac- 
cept as  evidence  the  opinion  of  Judge 
Heydt,  in  the  Carbon  county  change 
of  venue  case,  offered  by  Attorneys 
O’Brien  and  Lenahan,  in  which  the 
judge  declared  it  was  true  that  a par- 
tial reign  of  terror  at  least  existed  in 
the  coal  regions  during  the  strike. 


General  Wilson  then  took  occasion  to 
compliment  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
on  the  eminent  fairness,  accuracy  and 
completeness  of  its  statistics.  He  add- 
ed that  he  hoped  the  other  companies’ 
statistics  would  be  equally  as  com- 
mendable. 

The  general  also  announced  a ruling 
by  the  commission  that  hereafter  when 
an  attorney  absents  himself  he  would 
be  expected  to  leave  with  some  col- 
league authority  to  represent  him.  The 
commission,  he  said,  did  not  propose 
to  suffer  any  more  delays  to  the  pro- 
ceedings through  the  absence  of  at- 
torneys. 

This  ruling  was  the  result  of  a delay 
occasioned  Saturday  by  the  absence  of 
the  counsel  for  the  non-union  men 
Two  witnesses  whom  the  miners  want- 
ed to  put  on  to  make  answer  to  at- 
tacks made  on  their  reputations  by 
non-union  witnesses  could  not  be 
heard  because  of  the  absence  of  Messrs. 
O’Brien  and  Lenahan. 


Comptroller  Culver,  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company,  who  was  on  the 
stand  at  adjourning-  time  Saturday, 
was  then  further  cross-examined  by 
Mr.  Darrow.  He  was  questioned  about 
present  prices  of  coal.  Mr.  Culver  de- 
clared that  the  company  does  not  bene- 
fit by  the  prevailing  speculative  prices, 
but  could  not  tell  particularly  who 
was.  Generally  speaking,  he  said,  it 
was  the  middlemen,  sales  agents  and 
the  like.'  All  he  knew  about  the  high 
prices  was  wha.t  he  gleaned  from  the 
newspapers.  The  company  maintained 
a $5  rate  at  tidewater  for  prepared 
sizes,  and  received  no  share  of  any- 
thing in  excess  of  this  that  coal  may 
be  bringing. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  if  it  was  not  true 
that  the  company  had  raised  the  price 
of  coal  to  local  trade  at  Carbondale  to 
$6.50  a ton.  Mr.  Culver  said  the  price 
had  been  raised  to  $6,  he  thought,  and 
explained  that  it  was  for  the  purpose 
of  shutting  off  the  speculators.  These 
are  men  who  buy  coal  at  the  breaker  in 
small  quantities  at  a time  until  they 
accumulate  a car  load  and  then  send 
it  to  New  York  or  elsewhere  on  some 
other  road  to  be  sold  at  the  exhorbit- 
ant  prices  which  can  be  secured  by 
taking  advantage  of  the  coal  famine. 
As  far  as  the  company  is  concerned, 
he  said,  it  had  no>  desire  to  sell  coal  at 
all  at  Carbondale.  The  price  to  em- 
ployes has  not  been  increased  and  they 
can  have  any  reasonable  supply  for 
which  they  make  requisition. 

Commissioner  Watkins  suggested  that 
Mr.  Culver  could  not  very  well  know 
much  about  sales  and  advised  that 
some  official  from  the  sales  department 
be  called  to  give  testimony  in  this 
matter.  Attorney  Torrey  said  he  would 
telegraph  for  the  company’s  sales 
agent. 

Mr.  Rose  Re-called. 

Superintendent  C.  C.  Rose  was  re- 
called for  further  direct  examination 
by  Mr.  Torrey.  He  was  asked  con- 
cerning the  probable  result  of  a ces- 
collieries.  Mr.  Rose  replied  that  every 
one  of  the  mines  except  two  would  be 
flooded  if  the  pumping  ceased,  and  once 
they  were  flooded  above  the  pumps,  it 
would  take  months  and  in  some  cases 
years  to  get  the  water  out.  In  some 
instances,  he  declared,  it  would  require 
fifty  years. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  if  the  company 
would  prefer  to  have  its  property  de- 
stroyed than  grant  an  eight  hour  day 
to  steam  men  who  were  working  twelve 
hours  a day  and  twenty-four  hours 
every  other  Sunday.  Mr.  Rose  replied 
that  it  was  preferable  to  let  the  prop- 
erties be  destroyed  than  to  turn  over 
their  control  to  the  men.  It  was  not 
the  reduction  in  hours,  he  said,  that 
the  company  objected  to  so  much  as  to 
accepting  dictation.  If  the  men  were 
allowed  to  dictate  that  they  would 
only  work  eight  hours  this  week,  they 
would  be  around  next  week  dictating 
they  would  work  only  four  hours. 

“If  it  was  a matter  of  principle,” 
said  Mr.  Rose.  “We  didn’t  propose  to 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

be  imposed  upon.  Sooner  than  let  the 
employes  run  the  property,  I,  person- 
ally, would  let  the  property  be  de- 
stroyed.” 

“Have  not  your  employes  as  much 
right  to  say  they  will  work  eight  hours 
as  you  have  to  say  they  must  work 
twelve?”  asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

“They  have  no  right  to  persecute 
other  men  who  are  willing  to  work 
twelve  hours,”  replied  the  witness. 

Referring  to  Mr.  Rose's  statement 
that  he  was  opposed  to  a weekly  pay 
day  because  it  meant  a loss  of  time,  as 
much  time  as  is  now  lost  by  a semi- 
monthly pay  day,  Mr.  Darrow  tried  to 
have  the  witness  say  it  was  because 
the  men  would  get  drunk  twice  a 
month.  The  witness  would  neither  af- 
firm nor  deny  that  this  entered  into 
the  case.  He  explained  that  the  men 
lose  time  on  pay  day  by  coming  out 
earlier  than  is  necessary,  going  home 
to  wash  up  and  then  not  returning. 

Chief  Anderson’s  Testimony. 

George  Anderson,  chief  clerk  in  the 
coal  department  of  the  Delaware  and 
Hudson  company,  was  next  called.  He 
prepared  a statement  showing  the 
length  of  service  of  2,388  employes  of 
the  company.  It  showed  only  those  who 
worked  over  ten  years.  It  ranged  from 
ten  years  to  sixty  years.  The  total 
number  of  employes  is  between  12,000 
and  13,000. 

Mr.  Anderson  explained  the  workings 
of  the  relief  fund  conducted  mutually 
by  the  company  and  the  men.  The  men 
contribute  one  day’s  pay  a year,  and 
the  company  puts  in  an  amount  equal 
to  the  combined  contributions  of  the 
employes.  The  company  does  the  col- 
lecting and  distributing,  and  all  the 
bookkeeping  free  of  charge.  At  each 
colliery,  a committee  of  two  bosses  and 
three  workmen  pass  upon  the  matter 
of  granting  relief. 

In  case  of  accident  to  a man  earning 
over  $1.20  a day,  he  receives  $6  a week 
for  three  months.  In  case  of  death,  an 
allowance  of  $50  is  made  for  funeral 
expenses;  $3  a week  for  one  year  to 
the  widow,  and  $1  a week  for  one  year 
to  each  dependent  under  twelve  years 
of  age.  The  benefits  are  one-half  of 
these  amounts  in  the  case  of  a man 
earning  less  than  $1.20  a day.  A con- 
tract miner’s  wage  for  the  purposes  of 
the  relief  association  is  fixed  arbitrar- 
ily at  $2.18  a day.  All  membership  is 
voluntary.  Out  of  the  12,000  or  13,000 
employes,  5,581  belong  to  the  associa- 
tion. The  total  amount  contributed  in 
1901  was  $20,000,  and  the  amount  paid 
out  was  $16,340. 

Men  Not  Anxious  to  Work. 

The  next  matter  presented  by  Mr. 
Anderson  was  the  loss  of  time  charge- 
able to  the  men.  On  Thanksgiving  day 
the  company  sent  notice  to  the  men 
that  it  would  start  the  collieries  if  the 
men  wanted  to  work.  The  company 
sent  notice  that  it  desired  to  work  on 
New  Year’s  day.  On  neither  day  did 
any  considerable  number  of  men  report. 
In  no  case  were  there  enough  men  at 


131 

any  colliery  to  permit  of  it  being 
worked. 

Mr.  Darrow  remarked  that  these  are 
legal  holidays;  that  the  law  allows  the 
men  a day  off,  and  that  it  would  be 
illegal  to  attempt  to  compel  them  to 
work.  No  one  questioned  his  declar- 
ation. 

Mr.  Anderson  presented  a table  show- 
ing the  number  of  days  lost  through 
the  fault  of  the  men  from  the  close  of 
the  1902  strike  until  January  2,  1903. 
The  total  was  110  days  for  28  working 
places,  and  the  loss  in  output  he  figured 
was  92,561  tons,  or  nearly  the  gross  out- 
put of  all  collieries  for  four  full  days. 

He  also  presented  a table  showing 
that  the  employes  who  have  minor  sons 
working  in  and  about  the  collieries 
earned  in  1901  an  average  of  $550.  This 
was  to  combat  the  claim  of  the  miners 
that  children  are  forced  into  the  mines 
at  an  early  age  because  of  the  small 
wages  paid  their  fathers. 

Mr.  Darrow,  prompted  by  Mr.  Mur- 
phy, conducted  the  cross-examination. 
The  total  capacity  of  the  companies’ 
collieries,  including  washeries,  it  was 
brought  out,  is  27,000  tons.  The  full 
capacity  is  never  obtained,  because  all 
collieries  do  not  work  full  time  every 
day.  Breakdowns  and  other  causes  are 
constantly  reducing  the  output. 

“Did  you  charge  Mitchell  Day  against 
the  miners  when  distributing  the  re- 
sponsibility for  lost  time  since  the  close 
of  the  1900  strike?”  asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

Mitchell  Day. 

“Well,  Mitchell  Day  is  hardly  a legal 
holiday,”  replied  the  witness. 

“It’s  more  than  a legal  holiday,  we 
think,”  rejoined  Mr.  Darrow. 

Mr.  Darrow  secured  an  admission 
from  the  witness  that  some  men  re- 
ported for  work  the  day  following 
Christmas;  that  it  was  possible  to  let 
some  of  these  men,  at  least,  work,  and 
that  the  company  did  not  make  a 
start  everywhere  that  one  reported. 
The  witness  could  not  tell  how  many 
reported,  but  he  was  sure  it  was  less 
than  half  the  force,  and  far  from 
enough  to  operate. 

Thanksgiving  Day,  All  Souls’  Day, 
Mitchell  Day,  Christmas,  the  day  after 
Christmas  and  New  Year’s  Day  were 
the  days,  the  witness  explained,  on 
which  the  collieries  could  not  be  oper- 
ated. The  men  were  charged  with  be- 
ing accountable  for  the  idleness  on  All 
Souls’  Day,  the  day  following  Christ- 
mas and  New  Year’s  Day. 

Thomas  R.  Thomas,  inside  foreman 
of  the  Jermyn  colliery  of  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company,  told  of 
trouble  the  company  had  at  that  col- 
liery in  combatting  an  effort  by  the 
union  to  regulate  the  work  of  the  head- 
ing men. 

Union  Prevents  Work. 

The  company  was  desirous  of  push- 
ing the  “heading”  work  to  open  up  a 
large  new  territory.  The  heading  men 
also  were  willing  and  anxious  to  push 
the  work.  The  union  sought  to  pre- 


132 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


vent  them  from  doing-  any  more  than 
was  being  done  by  the  “chamber  men” 
and  took  various  means  of  enforcing  its 
ideas. 

First  the  boys  refused  to  give  the 
heading  men  more  than  “their  share” 
of  cars;  that  is,  more  than  the  cham- 
ber men  were  allowed.  Dec.  13,  1901, 
the  company  discharged  two  drivers 
who  refused  to  give  the  heading  men 
cars  that  were  sent  to  them.  Other 
boys,  who  refused  to  take  the  places 
of  those  discharged,  were  also  dis- 
charged. The  whole  force  went  on 
strike,  but  after  a few  days  agreed  to 
come  back  if  the  boys  were  all  rein- 
stated. The  company  agreed  to  rein- 
state them,  if  they  would  do  as  they 
were  directed. 

The  local  instructed  the  boys  to  obey 
orders  and  work  was  resumed.  A t the 
same  meeting,  it  was  afterwards 
learned,  a resolution  was  passed,  rea4- 
ing  as  follows; 

Jermyn,  Pa.,  Nov.  4,  1901. 

Local  1025,  U.  M.  W.  of  A. 

Unless  all  heading  men  cease  loading 
more  than  their  share  of  cars  you  will  be 
expelled  from  the  union. 

(Seal  of  Local  1025). 

The  resolution  was  directed  to  the 
heading  men  and  copies  of  it  sent  to 
them. 

Tools  Destroyed. 

On  the  Saturday  night  following  the 
meeting,  some  party  or  parties  entered 
the  mine  and  destroyed  tools  belonging 
to  three  of  the  “heading  men,”  Michael 
McHale,  Harry  Gelbert  and  Henry 
Richards,  who  had  disregarded  the 
notice. 

It  later  developed  that  while  the 
driver  boys  were  not  refusing  to  haul 
cars  to  the  “heading  men,”  the  laborers 
were  refusing  to  load  their  coal.  The 
company  became  satisfied  that  the 
union  was  coercing  the  laborers,  and  on 
December  31  closed  down  the  colliery, 
as  a disciplinary  measure  After  two 
weeks,  a committee  waited  on  the 
superintendent  and  gave  assurance  that 
if  the  mine  was  opened  up,  there  would 
be  no  further  molestation  of  the  “head- 
ing men.”  The  mine  was  reopened  and 
continued  to  work  until  the  big  strike 
came.  Joseph  Sobey  was  one  of  the 
“heading  men”  who  disregarded  tne 
notice  from  the  union.  His  house  was 
dynamited. 

Foreman  Thomas’  direct  testimony 
closed  with  a statement  that  the  con- 
tract miners  at  the  Jermyn  colliery 
work  on  an  average  only  tour  hours  a 
day. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Thomas 
said  he  had  no  objection  to  the  miners 
being  members  of  the  union,  but  he 
would  not  say  he  approved  of  their 
being  members  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America,  because  of  the  ex- 
periences he  had  had  with  this  particu- 
lar organization. 

“You  would  not  meet  Mr.  Mitchell  or 
Mr.  Nicholls,  as  representatives  of  your 
employes?”  Mr.  Darrow  asked. 

“No,  sir,”  replied  the  witness. 

“Isn’t  it  possible  that  your  men 


might  think  they  were  not  capable  of 
meeting  and  coping  with  one  of  your 
long  experience  and  ability  and  want 
to  select  some  one  to  represent  them 
who  would  be  of  equal  ability  with 
you?” 

“There  is  no  necessity  lor  any  out- 
sider interfering  between  me  and  my 
men.  There  are  any  number  of  men  at 
my  place  who  are  as  intelligent  and  ex- 
perienced as  I am.” 

“You  want  to  meet  only  such  men  as 
are  subject  to  discharge  by  you?”  re- 
marked Mr.  Darrow. 

Further  questioning  by  Mr.  Darrow 
sought  to  bring  an  admission  that  the 
local  was  objecting  to  the  number  of 
cars  the  “heading  men”  were  allowed 
because  it  decreased  the  number  of  cars 
the  chamber  men  would  get.  The  wit- 
ness said  this  was  not  the  case. 

Mine  Force  too  Large. 

Mr.  Torrey  adduced  the  statement 
that  the  reason  chamber  men  do  not 
get  more  cars  than  at  present  are  al- 
lowed them  is  that  the  force  at  the 
mine  is  too  great  for  the  available 
places.  It  is  a very  desirable  mine  to 
work  in,  and  because  for  years  fathers 
have  been  taking  their  sons  into  part- 
nership in  a chamber  the  force  has 
grown  too  large.  The  company  has  for 
some  time  been  endeavoring  to  reduce 
the  force. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  if  all 
the  500  men  at  the  Jermyn  had  joined 
the  union  willingly.  The  witness  said 
no;  that  he  could  name  a dozen  who 
did  not  want  to  belong  to  it.  Mr.  Dar- 
row tried  to  get  the  names  of  these 
dozen.  The  witness  would  not  give 
them,  as  they  had  spoken  to  him  confi- 
dentially. He  admitted  that  half  of  the 
twelve  were  these  “heading  men.” 

Mr.  Darrow  emphasized  the  fact  that 
only  twelve  at  the  most,  out  of  500  men, 
had  not  willingly  joined  the  union,  and 
tried  to  make  it  appear  that  these 
twelve  had  told  the  foremen  they  did 
not  want  to  belong  to  the  union,  solely 
for  the  purpose  of  “jollying”  him  into 
giving  them  “headings.” 

Michael  McHale,  a miner  at  Jermyn, 
where  he  had  been  employed  for  seven 
years,  testified  that  in  September,  1901, 
when  he  had  a contract  for  enlarging 
a heading  so  that  a locomotive  could 
pass  under  the  roof  he  was  notified  by 
the  local  to  which  he  belonged  that  he 
was  loading  too  many  cars  and  that 
if  he  did  not  stop  he  would  be  expelled 
from  the  union.  Thereupon  he  went 
to  see  Henry  Collins,  the  district  or- 
ganizer, who  told  him  to  write  to  Pres- 
ident Nicholls,  of  the  district.  Nicholls 
replied  that  the  work  was  apparently 
necessary  for  the  development  of  the 
mine  and  should  go  on.  So  McHale 
was  permitted  to  continue  for  a time. 
But  in  November  the  complaint  was 
renewed.  McHale  attended  a meeting 
of  his  local  and  explained  the  terms 
and  conditions  of  his  contract.  In 
spite  of  this  the  local  decided  that  he 
could  not  load  any  more  cars  than  the 
men  who  were  working  in  breasts  and 


chambers  got.  Again  the  matter  went 
to  Nicholls,  who,  this  time,  said  he 
could  do  nothing  for  McHale,  the  local 
must  handle  it.  The  local  then  decided 
that  McHale  must  lay  off  two  of  the 
nine  laborers  working  for  him,  and  he 
finally  did  so.  Soon  afterward  some 
one  smashed  $10  worth  of  his  tools  one 
night.  He  is  still  a member  of  the 
union. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  "Is  it  not 

necessary  for  the  company  to  Work  this 
gangway  steadily  and  rapidly  in  order 
to  develop  the  property?  A.  Yes,  sir: 
it  was. 

Commissioner  Parker:  “There  was 

good  reason  then  for  your  having  more 
cars  than  went  to  the  chambers?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  it  brought  the  coal  down  to 
the  shaft. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  “Is  it  not 

customary  to  give  gangway  men  a 
more  steady  supply  of  cars”?  A.  "It 
is  necessary  in  order  to  clean  a way 
to  the  chambers.” 

Harry  Gilbert’s  Testimony. 

Harry  Gilbert  also  worked  in  head- 
ings at  Jermyn,  on  day  and  night 
shifts.  He  was  a member  of  the  local. 
In  the  day  time  he  loaded  just  the  same 
number  of  cars  as  the  men  in  the  cham- 
bers, but  at  night,  he  usually  got  nine 
cars.  In  October,  1901,  the  drivers  and 
runners  told  him  that  the  local  had 
ordered  them  not  to  give  him  cars  at 
night  unless  Gilbert  would  agree  not 
to  load  more  ears  than  day  men  did. 
The  company  wanted  the  place  com- 
pleted quickly.  The  trouble  was  not 
settled  and  in  December  Gilbert  was 
suspended  by  the  local  “until  such 
time  as  he  will  live  up  to  the  rules.” 
Under  cross-examination  by  Dan  Mc- 
Carthy, Gilbert  said: 

“You  don’t  seem  to  know  what  those 
runners  wanted  me  to  do.  Suppose 
there  would  be  a break  anywhere,  as 
often  happens,  and  those  men  got  only 
two  cars,  the  miners  wanted  me  to 
load  only  two  cars  at  night,  although 
seven  was  the  shift,  and  although  the 
drivers  and  runners  would  get  their 
full,  shift  for  those  two  cars.” 

Commissioner  Watkins:  “Did  the 

men  complain  to  you”?  A.  “We  talked 
it  over.” 

Q.  “Did  you  discuss  it  in  meetings 
of  your  local”?  A.  “It  was  not  much 
use.  There  were  only  a few  night 
shift  men  and  the  day  men  outvoted 
us.” 

The  testimony  of  both  McHale  and 
Gilbert  showed  that  no  matter  what 
the  necessity  might  be  for  having 
work  done  rapidly,  it  could  not  be 
done,  except  with  difficulty  and  trouble, 
unless  the  union  was  satisfied  as  to  the 
conditions. 

Dettry’s  Defense. 

William  H.  Dettry.  the  new  president 
of  District  No.  7,  Ignited  Mine  Workers 
of  America,  added  some  variety  to  the 
violence  testimony.  He  was  called  to 
the  stand  to  defend  against  charges 
made  by  a witness  for  the  non-union 


men  last  week,  that  he  said  in  a speech 
during  the  strike  ought  to  have  his 
caught  should  be  given  a good  thump- 
ing, and  that  he  told  a man,  after  the 
strike,  that  every  man  who  worked 
during  the  strike  ought  to  have  his  nose 
cut  off. 

After  denying  the  charges,  Mr.  Dit- 
try  went  on  to  make  the  startling  d - 
claration  that  his  house  was  stoned 
frequently  during  the  strike.  Two  win- 
dows in  the  front  and  one  in  the  rear 
were  smashed.  One  day  half-a-doze  i 
coal  and  iron  police  came  to  his  house 
and  surrounded  it.  When  they  found  te 
was  not  at  home  they  went  away.  This 
was  the  first  instance  of  a union  man 
complaining  of  being  the  victim  of 
strike  violence. 

On  cross-examination.  Mr.  Lenahan 
tried  to  have  President  Dettry  tell  that 
he  knew  that  his  predecessor,  ex-Presi- 
dent  Thomas  Duffy,  is  not  a citizen  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  he  went  to 
Pottsville  only  last  week  to  be  natural- 
ized. The  witness  could  not  tell  any- 
thing about  it. 

Mr.  Lenahan  then  brought  out  that 
President  Dettry  was  a member  of  the 
Junior  Order  United  American  Me- 
chanics and  Patroitic  Order  Sons  cf 
America,  and  tried  to  get  the  witness 
to  admit  that  he  had  been  expelle  :1 
from  one  of  these  organizations  for  em- 
bezzlement. The  witness  emphatically 
denied  the  allegation.  The  witness  ad- 
mitted, however,  in  answer  to  further 
questions,  that  he  said  to  John  Sher- 
man, a non-union  man,  after  the  strike, 
that  he  would  have  to  get  out. 

Beamish,  on  the  Stand. 

Several  witnesses  corroborated  Presi- 
dent Dettry’s  denials,  and  then  Richard 
J.  Beamish,  of  the  North  American, 
took  the  stand  to  deny  General  Gobin’s 
charge  that  he  forged  Colonel  Clements’ 
name  to  an  order  to  stop  a troop  train. 
Mr.  Beamish  presented  the  order  in 
Colonel  Clements’  handwriting,  on 
which  the  train  was  stopped,  and  fur- 
ther testified  that  when  the  order  was 
exhibited  to  General  Gobin  several 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

days  later,  he  admitted  it  was  Colonel 
Clements’  wmiting.  Mr.  Beamish  is  to 
be  recalled  to  testify  to  the  authentic- 
ity of  the  interview  regarding  the 
‘shoot  to  kill”  order. 

The  hearing  of  the  Delaware  and 
Hudson  witnesses  was  then  resumed. 

Edward  Cavanaugh,  a boy  from  the 
Von  Storch,  told  that  he  was  injured, 
as  the  result  of  the  gross  carelessness 
of  a runner  named  Clarke;  that  Clarke 
was  discharged  as  a result  of  an  inves- 
tigation set  afoot  by  the  superintendent 
at  the  instance  of  the  witness’  father, 
and  that  the  men  went  on  strike  for 
the  reinstatement  of  Clarke  and  the 
discharge  of  the  elder  Cavanaugh. 

On  cross-examination,  it  was  ad- 
duced that  the  men  were  induced  to 
return  to  work  by  the  officers  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  without  secur- 
ing their  demands. 

Anthony  Burback,  foreman  at  the 
Von  Storch,  gave  testimony  to  show' 
how  discipline  had  been  decreased 
since  the  advent  of  the  union.  In  Au- 
gust, 1901,  the  driver  boys  made  a de- 
mand for  increased  wages  in  the  morn- 
ing and  quit  in  the  afternoon,  when 
the  foreman  would  not  tell  them  they 
eould  have  it.  They  were  on  a strike 
six  weeks.  In  the  meantime,  company 
men  were  paid  to  do  the  driving.  There 
were  no  such  experiences  as  that  be- 
fore 1900,  the  witness  declared. 

The  Output  Restricted. 

The  men  restricted  the  output,  the 
witness  assserted,  by  refusing  to  load 
coal  and  rock  the  same  day,  as  for- 
merly. 

David  Davis,  mine  foreman  at  the 
Langcliffe  colliery  at  Avoca,  told  that 
eight  cars  was  a shift  before  1900,  but 
as  a result  of  action  of  the  local,  no 
miner  will  now  load  more  than  six  cars. 
Some  of  the  miners  are  very  willing  to 
load  eight  cars,  but  the  drivers  will  not 
deliver  them  more  than  six. 

H.  T.  Hughes,  inside  foreman  at  Ply- 
mouth No.  5,  testified  that  all  the  men 
in  the  Red  Ash  vein  struck  for  more 
pay  on  February  15,  1901,  and  remained 


133 

out  until  November  26,  1902.  A miner 
who  went  in  to  work  in  the  vein  came 
out  immediately  and  said  he  could  not 
work  the  chamber  assigned  him,  be- 
cause it  was  “marked.”  On  examina- 
tion it  was  found  that  all  the  places  in 
the  vein  bore  the  union’s  boycott  mark, 
a circle  with  a cross  in  it,  cut  in  the 
roof  with  a pick  and  then  chalked. 
James  Kimmick,  who  had  a contract 
to  drive  a plane  and  airway  in  this 
vein,  could  not  complete  his  contract 
because  no  one  would  work  with  him. 

The  cause  of  the  trouble,  Attorney 
James  L.  Lenahan  showed  on  cross-ex- 
amination, was  that  the  company  re- 
fused to  pay  the  men  for  standing 
props,  as  was  done  in  the  same  vein  in 
the  adjoining  No.  4 colliery. 

Frederick  Padman,  foreman  of  Ply- 
mouth No.  3,  told  that  in  May,  1901,  the 
gangway  laborers  demanded  that  the 
shift  be  cut  from  six  to  five  cars  and 
that  they  should  receive  the  same  pay 
for  five  as  for  six  cars.  The  miners 
said  they  could  not  afford  this,  and  the 
laborers  struck.  Twenty  chambers  were 
thrown  idle. 

James  P.  Dickson  a Witness. 

James  P.  Dickson,  general  freight 
agent  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
company,  was  on  the  stand  at  adjourn- 
ing time.  He  was  called  to  contradict 
the  allegation  of  the  miners  that  the 
cost  of  the  necessaries  of  life  had  in- 
creased from  20  to  30  per  cent,  in  the 
last  two  years.  He  explained  that  he 
was  commissary  for  his  company  dur- 
ing the  strike  and  thereby  gained  a 
general  knowledge  of  the  cost  of  gro- 
ceries and  the  like.  Since  the  strike  he 
secured  and  compared  prices  for  three 
years,  1900,  1901  and  1902,  from  grocers, 
butchers,  wholesalers  and  the  like,  and 
the  result  of  his  inquiry  was  that  there 
had  been  no  appreciable  increase. 

He  was  about  to  enter  upon  testi- 
mony as  to  the  number  of  saloons  and 
amount  of  drink  consumed  in  the  coal 
regions,  when  the  hour  of  adjournment 
arrived. 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Jan.  IB. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  14.) 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  13. — The  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company  closed  its  case 
today,  and  the  Erie  started  in  to  pre- 
sent testimony. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion some  interesting  discussion  resulted 
from  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Darrow  to  get  an  inkling  of  what 
freight  rates  on  anthracite  are,  by 
having  General  Sales  Agent  Torrey,  of 
the  Delaware  and  Hudson  company, 
tell  what  proportion  of  the  35  per  cent, 
for  freight  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
company  gets  for  hauling  its  coal  to 
the  points  where  it  delivers  it  to  the 
companies  taking  it  to  tidewater.  The 
commission  declined  to  take  the  testi- 


mony, having  previously  ruled  that  it 
did  not  feel  called  upon  to  concern  it- 
self about  freight  rates. 

The  closing  testimony  for  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  was  given  by  W.  L. 
Lawrence,  general  real  estate  agent, 
who  dealt  with  the  miners  owning  real 
estate,  and  Dr.  W.  G.  Fulton  and  Dr. 
W.  E.  Keller,  who  gave  testimony  to 
contradict  the  assertion  that  mining  is 
an  extra-hazardous  and  very  unhealthy 
occupation. 

In  opening  the  case  for  the  Erie, 
Major  Warren  declared  that  if  not  re- 
strained by  the  union,  the  miners,  with 
a reasonable  day’s  labor,  could  increase 
their  wages  up  to  and  beyond  the  figure 


to  which  they  are  asking  the  commis- 
sion to  advance  them. 

There  is  a sharp  difference  between 
the  manner  in  which  the  hearings  pro- 
ceeded in  Scranton  and  the  way  they 
go  here.  There,  when  the  miners  were 
putting  in  their  case,  the  lawyers  for 
the  operators  made  very  few  objections 
and  never,  or  seldom,  fought  hard  for 
their  points.  Now,  that  it  is  the  oper- 
ators’ turn,  the  miners  fight  every  step 
with  vigor.  Mr.  Darrow  is  constantly 
objecting  to  this  or  that  bit  of  evi- 
dence, as  incompetent  or  improper,  al- 
though his  side  presented  a practically 
similar  kind  of  evidence  in  Scranton. 

For  instance,  this  morning  he  ob- 


134 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


jected  to  the  testimony  of  James  P. 
Dickson  on  cost  of  provisions,  as  being 
incompetent.  Mr.  Dickson  testified  he 
secured  the  evidence  from  grocers  and 
the  like.  In  Scranton  the  miners’  wit- 
nesses on  this  point  testified  they  se- 
cured their  evidence  in  identically  the 
same  manner.  The  objection  to  the  tes- 
timony of  E.  W.  Porter,  on  wages  in 
the  bituminous  fields,  was  another  inci- 
dent of  this. 


MORNING  SESSION. 


Thos.  F.  Torrey  Summoned  to  Give 
Knowledge  of  Prices. 

At  yesterday’s  session,  Mr.  Darrow 
was  entering  upon  an  examination  of 
Comptroller  Culver,  of  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company,  regarding  coal 
prices,  when  Commissioner  Watkins, 
seeing  the  witness  was  not  versed  in 
the  matter  being  discussed,  suggested 
that  some  one  be  brought  from  the 
sales  department. 

Attorney  Torrey  said  he  would  bring 
the  head  of  the  sales  department,  his 
namesake,  General  Sales  Agent  T.  F. 
Torrey.  The  latter  was  telegraphed  for 
at  once  and  was  present  at  the  open- 
ing of  this  morning’s  session. 

When  he  was  put  on  the  stand  the 
commissioners  assembled  about  Acting 
Chairman  Wilson  and  had  an  informal 
conference.  At  its  conclusion.  General 
Wilson  announced  that  in  accordance 
with  the  ruling  of  Chairman  Gray  the 
commission  would  not  hear  any  testi- 
mony bearing  on  the  question  of  freight 
rates. 

The  witness  having  been  invited  at 
the  suggestion  of  the  commission,  one 
of  the  commissioners,  Mr.  Watkins, 
conducted  his  examination. 

In  response  to  questions  by  Commis- 
sioner Watkins,  the  witness  said  the 
company  has  no  control  over  retail 
prices  in  New  York,  and  then  went  on 
to  explain  how  the  Delaware  and  Hud- 
son disposes  of  its  coal. 

The  company  sells  its  coal  to  the 
Hillside  Coal  and  Iron  company,  a sub- 
sidiary company  of  the  Erie  Railroad 
company.  The  coal  is  sold  on  the  BB- 
SS contract,  the  same  as  the  independ- 
ents sell,  or  rather  formerly  did  sell 
to  carriers.  This  arrangement  was 
made  last  spring. 

The  Delaware  and  Hudson  company, 
the  witness  said,  has  nothing  to  do 
with  distribution  in  New  York.  The 
Hillside  Coal  and  Iron  company  takes 
the  coal  at  either  Carbondale  or  Hones- 
dale.  Only  about  40  per  cent,  of  its 
product  pays  65  per  cent.  This  40  per 
cent,  represents  the  domestic  sizes.  On 
pea  coal  the  percentage  is  50,  and  on 
buckwheat  the  seller  gets  only  40  per 
cent. 

The  circular  price  at  New  York,  at 
present,  the  witness  said,  is  $5  a ton. 
In  1901,  it  was,  he  thought,  $4. 

The  witness  does  not  come  in  direct 
contact  with  the  retailer,  now  and  could 
not  testify  as  to  retail  prices  except 
from  hearsay. 

Commissioner  Clark  brought  out  the 


fact  that  the  coal  sold  by  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company  to  the  Hillside 
company  is  handled  in  New  York  ex- 
clusively by  Ward  & Olyphant,  who 
were  sales  agents  for  the  Delaware  and 
Hudson  before  it  made  the  deal  with 
the  Hillside  company.  Mr.  Darrow 
later  brought  out  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Olyphant,  of  the  firm  of  Ward  & Oly- 
phant, is  the  son  of  President  Olyphant, 
of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  company. 

Mr.  Darrow  also  adduced  the  admis- 
sion that  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
company  receives  an  extra  allowance 
for  hauling  of  its  coal  from  its  col- 
lieries to  the  points  where  it  is  deliv- 
ered to  the  company  taking  it  to  tide- 
water, and  sought  persistently  to  find 
out  what  this  allowance  is.  The  ob- 
jection was  raised  that  this  was  going 
into  the  question  of  freight  rates  and 
the  commission  refused  to  take  the  tes- 
timony. 

It  was  brought  out  by  Mr.  Darrow 
that  the  Delaware  and  Pludson  com- 
pany’s line  is  forty  miles  long  and  the 
Erie’s  line  120  miles.  If  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company’s  allowance  of  the 
35  per  cent,  representing  haulage,  com- 
mercial risk  and  cost  of  selling  was 
known,  it  would  be  a very  simple  mat- 
ter to  figure  out  the  freight  tariffs. 
Because  of  this  simplicity,  he  thought, 
the  commission  ought  to  take  the  tes- 
timony. 

Mr.  Torrey  maintained  that  it  was 
a private  contract  between  two  corpor- 
ations and  at  the  best  could  not  be 
taken  as  a criterion  of  freight  rates. 
Besides,  the  commission  had  ruled  that 
the  freight  rate  question  was  of  no  con- 
cern to  it,  and  was  not  to  be  inquired 

Ruling  by  Judge  Gray. 

Acting  Chairman  Wilson  reiterated 
his  former  ruling  that  the  commission, 
through  Chairman  Gray,  had  announced 
a ruling  that  it  would  not  go  into  the 
question  of  freight  rates  and  even  if  so 
disposed  now,  the  commissioners  pres- 
ent would  not  take  up  the  matter  while 
Judge  Gray  was  absent. 

Mr.  Darrow  served  notice  that  on 
Judge  Gray’s  return  he  would  renew 
his  question. 

Commissioner  Parker,  who  has  had 
the  scarcity  of  coal  brought  home  to 
him,  inquired  of  the  witness  how  it  is 
that  the  independent  operators  can  get 
all  the  cars  they  want,  while  the  car- 
riers themselves  complain  of  a short- 
age. The  witness  did  not  know  that 
this  was  true. 

On  further  cross-examination  by  Mr. 
Darrow,  the  witness  told  that  his  com- 
pany sells  coal  direct  to  some  dealers 
in  Albany,  Troy.  Worcester,  Mass.. 
Rutland,  Vt.,  and  other  places  in  North- 
ern New  York  and  New  England. 

When  asked  what  prices  were  ob- 
tained from  these  dealers,  the  witness 
said  he  could  not  answer.  There  is  such 
a multitude  of  prices  obtaining  just 
now,  he  said,  that  he  could  not  carry 
them  in  his  head.  He  further  exploined 
that  he  was  summoned  here,  unexpect- 
edly, by  telegraph,  yesterday  afternoon, 


and  came  on  immediately  without 
booking  up  for  an  examination. 

Mr.  Darrow  expressed  surprise  that 
the  general  sales  agent  could  not  give 
any  information  about  prices,  and 
asked:  “If  you  can’t  give  these  prices, 

tell  us,  please,  who  can.’’ 

Commissioner  Watkins  suggested  that 
allowances  should  be  made  in  the  case 
of  this  witness,  as  he  was  Suddenlj 
summoned  and  had  no  time  to  antici- 
pate the  questions  that  might  be  put  to 
him. 

Mr.  Darrow’s  Impertinence  Resented. 

Mr.  Darrow  interrupted  the  commis- 
sioner with  a remark  to  the  effect  that 
a general  sales  agent  should  know 
something  at  least  about  what  his  com- 
pany gets  for  coal. 

"Just  wrait  a minute,  Mr.  Darrow," 
said  Commissioner  Watkins,  bringing 
his  fist  down  on  the  table  with  a re- 
sounding thump.  Mr.  Darrow  ceased 
abruptly.  There  was  no  attempt  on 
the  part  of  Commissioner  Watkins  ter 
disguise  the  fact  that  he  did  not  take 
kindly  to  Mr.  Darrow's  attempt  to  dis- 
count his  explanation. 

After  a moment’s  pause,  during  which 
he  eyed  Mr.  Darrow  reproachfully. 
Commissioner  Watkins  suggested  that 
the  witness  take  note  of  the  matters 
the  commission  wished  to  be  enlight- 
ened upon  and  furnish  the  desired  in- 
formation. The  witness  agreed  to  co 
this.  Mr.  Darrowr  said  his  clients  would 
not  be  satisfied  unless  the  witness,  after 
furnishing  the  information  the  commis- 
sion wanted,  went  upon  the  stand  for 
cross-examination.  Attorney  Torrey  said 
the  witness  would  go  on  the  stand 
again,  if  the  commission  desired  it. 
General  Wilson  said  the  matter  could 
be  decided  when  the  information  was 
furnished. 

Mr.  Darrow  next  developed  the  fact 
that  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  sells 
some  coal  to  the  Pennsylvania  railroad 
and  that  it  gets  65  per  cent,  plus  a 
share  of  the  35  per  cent,  for  hauling 
from  the  mines  to  the  point  of  delivery. 

In  answer  to  questions  oy  Commis- 
sioner Watkins,  the  witness  said  his 
company  has  no  control  of  Ward  & 
Olyphant,  the  firm  selling  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  coal  for  the  Hillside  com- 
pany. “It  is  their  property,”  the  wit- 
ness asserted,  “and  we  can  not  dictate 
how  they  shall  sell  it.” 

To  emphasize  the  claim  that  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company  is  not 
profiting  from  the  big  prices  obtained 
from  consumers,  at  this  time.  Attorney 
Torrey  asked  the  witness  direct:  "Does 
the  Delaware  and  Hudson  company 
reap  any  benefit  from  higher  prices 
than  contained  in  the  circular?”  The 
witnessed  answered,  “No.” 

“How  about  Carbondale?"  asked  Mr. 
Darrow. 

The  witness  explained  that  ?6  is 
charged  for  coal  in  Carbondale  to  cir- 
cumvent farmers,  peddlers  and  others 
who  have  been  buying  coal  by  the 
wagonload  at  the  breakers,  accumu- 
lating it  in  carloads,  and  shipping  ii 
on  the  Erie  and  Ontario  and  Western 


to  New  York  and  New  England,  to  be 
sold  at  exorbitant  prices.  The  raise  in 
the  price  at  Carbondale  has  tended  to 
do-  away  with  this  practice. 

Mr.  Darrow  further  pursued  his  ques- 
tioning as  to  prices  obtained  by  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  for  coal  sold  di- 
rect to  retailers,  and  adduced  the  ad- 
mission that  in  Vermont  some  coal  has 
been  sold  for  $6.  The  witness  explained 
that  this  was  the  circular  price  for 
Vermont. 

James  P.  Dickson,  who  was  on  the 
stand  at  adjourning  time  yesterday, 
was  recalled  to  tell  about  the  amount 
of  drink  consumed  in  the  coal  regions, 
and  particularly  about  the  number  of 
saloons  in  the  neighborhood  of  coal 
mines. 

Testimony  Excluded. 

Mr.  Darrow  made  an  extended  in- 
quiry into  the  competency  of  the  tes- 
timony and  when  it  was  shown  that 
the  witness  had  not  made  any  calcu- 
lation as  to  how  much  of  this  drink 
had  been  consumed  by  miners  and  how 
much  “by  operators,  lawyers,  mer- 
chants, ministers  and  others,”  as  Mr. 
Darrow  put  it,  the  commission  decided 
to  exclude  his  testimony. 

“Unless  you  can  give  us  the  amount 
consumed  by  the  miners  per  capita, 
the  tables  you  have  prepared  will  be 
of  no  use  to  us,”  declared  General  Wil- 
son. 

The  acting  chairman  had  previously 
accepted  the  tables  “for  what  they 
are  worth.”  After  Mr.  Darrow’s  ques- 
tioning of  the  witness  had  shown  theii 
incompetency,  Bishop  Spalding  and 
General  Wilson  had  a brief  conference 
and  then  the  other  commissioners  were 
consulted. 

“The  papers  are  excluded,”  said  the 
general.  “The  commission  has  over- 
ruled the  acting  chairman.”  The  other 
commissioners  laughed  heartily  at  Gen- 
eral Wilson’s  way  of  putting  the  mat- 
ter. 

E.  W.  Porter,  station  auditor  for  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company,  who 
was  sent  into  the  soft  coal  regions  to 
get  figures  on  hours  and  wages,  was 
put  on  the  stand  to  contradict  the 
claim  of  the  miners  that  the  soft  coal 
men  were  better  paid  than  the  anthra- 
cite men. 

He  told  that  he  made  investigations 
at  the  workings  of  three  companies, 
the  Victoria  Coal  and  Coke  company 
of  West  Virginia,  the  Buffalo,  Roches- 
ter and  Pittsburg  company  of  Western 
Pennsylvania,  and  a Brockwayville 
company  in  the  Clearfield  region. 

He  took  the  yearly  figures  for  1901  of 
the  West  Virginia  and  Clearfield  com- 
panies. In  the  case  of  the  Buffalo, 
Rochester  and  Pittsburg  company,  he 
selected  the  month  of  March  as  a fair 
criterion.  Because  of  the  size  of  the 
last  named  company  he  could  not  in 
the  limited  time  allowed  him,  go  over 
its  books  for  a year.  He  admitted  that 
in  the  month  of  March  wages  were  a 
little  below  the  average. 

Mr.  Darrow  objected  to  the  testimony 


MIN®  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  com- 
petent, the  inquiry  being  too  limited. 

Mr.  Torrey  remarked  that  it  surely 
was  more  competent  than  the  testi- 
mony the  miners  had  been  permitted 
to  give,  which  in  substance  was  a 
bold,  unsupported  statement  on  the 
part  of  Mr.  Mitchell  that  miners  in  the 
bituminous  field  were  better  paid  than 
those  in  the  anthracite  field. 

Contracts  Submitted. 

Mr.  Darrow  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  signed  contracts  between 
the  operators  and  employes  in  the  Illi- 
nois region  had  been  submitted  by  the 
miners’  side.  Mr.  Torrey  declared  that 
these  contracts  contained  no  informa- 
tion as  to  wages  and  hours,  except  that 
the  miners  were  to  get  the  Columbus 
scale  with  an  advance  of  ten  per  cent. 

General  Wilson  ruled  that  the  tables 
prepared  by  the  witness  would  be  ex- 
amined by  the  commission.  A decis- 
ion on  their  competency  would  be  made 
later. 

The  West  Virginia  and  Clearfield 
mines,  examined  into  by  the  witness, 
were  non-union  workings.  The  witness 
asserted  that  these  non-union  mines 
paid  five  per  cent,  higher  wages  than 
adjacent  mines  that  were  unionized. 

“Seems  you  people  ought  to  want  the 
union  then,”  remarked  Mr.  Darrow. 

The  witness  admitted  that  his  infor- 
mation regarding  this  latter  matter 
was  “hearsay.”  He  could  not  tell  who 
told  him. 

W.  L.  Lawrence,  general  real  estate 
agent  for  the  Delaware  and  Hudson, 
presented  tables  showing  that  29  per 
cent,  or  1,039  of  the  company’s  contract 
and  company  miners,  own  real  estate, 
valued  at  $1,322,161. 

In  reply  to  a question  of  Bishop 
Spalding,  the  witness  said  he  had  no 
personal  knowledge  as  to  mortgages 
on  this  property. 

On  cross  examination,  Mr.  Darrow 
drew  attention  to  the  fact  that  these 
properties  might  be  mortgaged  or 
otherwise  encumbered.  The  witness 
said  it  v as  impossible,  in  the  time  al- 
lowed, to  make  a search  of  the  mort- 
gage books  of  the  three  counties  in 
which  the  company’s  employes  reside. 

Dr.  W.  G Fulton,  of  Scranton,  one 
of  the  visiting  surgeons  on  the  Lacka- 
wanna hospital  staff,  was  the  last  wit- 
ness of  the  morning  session.  He  first 
told  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  com- 
pany giving  him  carte  blanche  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  the  law  requir- 
ing the  establishment  of  emergency 
hospitals  at  the  collieries.  Dr.  Fulton 
explained  in  detail  how  these  hospi- 
tals were  fitted  up  and  how  the  com- 
pany, at  his  suggestion,  refused  to 
adopt  any  of  the  “first  aid  to  injured” 
boxes  of  supplies,  and  got  up  one  of 
its  own,  which  was  bigger,  better  and 
more  costly. 

The  witness  then  proceeded  to  give 
statistics  regarding  the  hazard  and 
bealthfulness  of  the  miners’  occupa- 
tion. Lewis'  statistics,  an  English 


135 

publication,  was  quoted  from  to  show 
these  conditions  in  Great  Britain. 

The  whole  mortality  in  Great  Britain 
was,  in  1901,  18.74  to  the  thousand.  Of 
this,  .37  was  due  to  accident.  Deaths 
from  natural  causes  represented,  there- 
fore 17.87  to  the  thousand.  The  total 
mortality  among  miners  was  12.33  from 
all  causes  and  2 from  accident,  leav- 
ing 10.33  per  thousand  attributable  to 
natural  causes. 

Bishop  Spalding  criticised  the  com- 
parison between  the  total  and  the 
miners,  because,  in  the  total,  the  very 
old  and  the  very  young,  among  whom 
the  mortality  rate  is  the  highest,  were 
not  excluded. 

The  witness  said  the  occupation  of 
mining  is  decidedly  healthy.  As  to  the 
hazard  of  the  occupation,  he  quoted 
from  the  last  census  figures,  showing 
that  the  mortality  among  railroad  men 
was  39  per  cent.,  as  against  34  per  cent, 
among  miners.  Less  than  one-tenth 
of  the  miners  die  from  consumption, 
he  said,  while  among  factory  workers, 
the  ratio  is  one-seventh. 

“Miners’  asthma,”  the  doctor  de- 
clared, was  a misnomer.  The  disease 
is  common  to  all  “dusty”  occupations. 
The  miners  have  the  least  mortality 
of  any  from  asthma.  The  miner,  he 
said,  is  exempt  from  heart  disease  and 
suffers  little  from  rheumatism.  There 
is  no  special  disease  to  which  the 
miner  is  subject,  the  witness  said,  but 
he  is  liable  to  pulmonary  trouble.  A 
miner  has  a more  healthful  occupation, 
he  declared,  than  a stone-mason. 

On  cross-examination,  the  witness 
admitted  that  he  had  dissected  the 
bodies  of  miners  and  found  the  lungs 
blackened  by  the  inhaling  of  coal  dust. 

The  first  witness  of  the  afternoon, 
Dr.  W.  E.  Keller,  of  Scranton,  surgeon- 
major  of  the  Thirteenth  regiment,  gave 
statistics  regarding  the  health  of 
miners,  gleaned  from  examinations 
made  for  insurance  companies.  He 
made  3,973  examinations  of  persons 
'over  13  years  of  age.  He  estimated  that 
20  per  cent,  of  these  were  mine  workers. 
Out  of  the  whole  number  of  miners  ex- 
amined, only  thirty-seven  were  re- 
jected. The  proportion  of  rejections  of 
miners  was  4.66  per  cent,  and  of  the 
total,  5.76  per  cent.  Generally  speak- 
ing, the  doctor  said,  the  health  of 
miners  compares  favorably  with  men 
of  other  occupations. 

Examinations  He  Conducted. 

On  cross-examination  Mr.  Darrow 
brought  it  out  that  most  of  the  exam- 
inations he  conducted  were  for  indus- 
trial insurance  companies,  and  that 
these  companies  do  not  ask  as  many 
or  as  specific  questions  as  the  old  line 
companies. 

The  witness  never  examined  a miner 
for  old  line  insurance.  He  could  not 
say  whether  old  line  companies  would 
accept  miners.  He  admitted  that  nat- 
urally work  underground  was  less 
healthy  than  work  overground. 

“It  is  more  natural,”  remarked  Mr. 


136 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Darrow,  “to  live  on  the  earth  than  in 
it." 

Dr.  Keller  admitted  in  response  to 
leading-  questions  from  Mr.  Darrow, 
that  he  is  related  to  the  Pardees,  coal 
operators  of  the  Hazleton  region,  and 
that  his  family  receives  royalties  from 
coal  lands  in  the  Wilkes-Barre  region. 
The  witness  averred  that  he  was  not 
getting  more  than  one-fourth  what  he 
ought  to  get  from  his  interests  in  coal 
lands.  This  he  blamed  on  the  opera- 
tors, not  on  the  miners. 

Thomas  Parsons  was  the  last  wit- 
ness for  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
company.  He  identified  about  100  pho- 
tographs of  miners’  homes,  owned  by 
the  occupants.  He  said  he  was  in- 
structed by  the  company  to  take  the 
pictures  of  “average"  houses.  It  was 
3.35  p.  m.,  when  Mr.  Torrey1  announced 
that  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  com- 
pany rested. 

Immediately  on  the  conclusion  of  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  case,  Major 
Warren  made  the  opening  address  for 
the  second  of  the  big  companies  to  be 
heard — the  Erie,  which  controls  the 
Hillside  Coal  and  Iron  company  and 
the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company.  For- 
mer Attorney  General  Wayne  Mac- 
Veagh,  who  is  associated  with  Mr. 
Warren,  was  present,  but  took  only 
an  incidental  part  in  the  proceedings. 
In  opening  the  Erie  case,  Major  War- 
ren spoke  as  follows: 

Major  Warren’s  Address. 

May  It  Please  the  Commission — 

The  Plillside  Coal  and  Iron  company 
and  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company  are 
under  one  management,  and  their  cases, 
therefore,  will  be  presented  together. 

It  has  been  thought  desirable  by  those 
intrusted  with  the  interests  of  these  com- 
panies that  a brief  statement  should  be 
presented  to  the  commission,  outlining 
the  general  features  of  the  evidence  we 
intend  to  offer,  in  the  belief  that  it  will 
■aid  you  in  its  consideration.  Under  ordi- 
nary circumstances,  we  could  safely  rely 
upon  the  lack  of  proof  of  the  propriety  of 
the  Mine  Workers’  demands  and  rest  our 
case  there.  Mr.  Mitchell,  in  his  opening 
address,  made  large  promises  as  to  these 
proofs,  which  he  absolutely  failed  to  ful- 
fill. It  is  passing  strange  if  the  demands 
as  filed  by  the  Mine  Workers  are  we'l 
founded,  that  we  have  no  evidence  here 
to  sustain  them.  Aside  from  the  opin- 
ions of  an  ex-bituminous  mine  worker  of 
Illinois,  who  frankly  admits  that  he  has 
little,  if  any,  personal  knowledge  of 
conditions  in  the  anthracite  field,  (and  he 
promised  us,  I may  add,  witnesses  who 
would  claim  to  know  the  facts  from  per- 
sonal experience  in  the  region),  I cannot 
recall  a single  witness  who  has  sup- 
ported, in  any  fair  way,  the  demands  con- 
stituting the  complainants’  case. 

While  this  is  true,  we  realize  that  it  Is 
Incumbent  upon  us  to  place  before  the 
commission  the  actual  facts  within  our 
knowledge,  the  conditions,  the  exper- 
iences and  the  surroundings  of  our  com- 
panies and  their  employes,  as  well  as  the 
course  of  dealing  with  them  in  the  past. 
And  we  shall  attempt  to  frankly  and 
truthfully  present  these  facts.  You  must 
not  expect  us  to  cover  the  whole  field. 
We  cannot  crowd  Olympus  into  a nut. 


First,  then  the  matter  of  wages. 

Our  statements  and  figures,  already- 
submitted  and  certified  to  by  the  other 
side,  will  be  explained  in  detail  by  the 
auditor.  He  will  tell  you  how  they  are 
made  up  and  give  you  the  sources  of  his 
information.  The  work  has  been  enor- 
mous and  is  entitled  to,  and,  I have  no 
doubt,  will  receive  your  commendation 
These  statements  will  utterly  refute  the 
charges  that  our  employes  are  under- 
paid, and  they  will  disclose,  when  sup- 
plemented, as  they  will  be,  by  oral  tes- 
timony, that  the  earning  capacity  of  the 
employes  is  self-limited,  and  that  the 
men  have  it  in  their  power,  if  the  union 
did  not  interfere  and  hold  them  back,  to 
earn  much  larger  amounts;  fully  as  large 
as,  if  not  in  excess  of,  the  demands  be- 
fore the  commission.  No  schedule  of 
wages  can  be  drafted  to  cover  the  whole 
of  this  northern  field,  which  will  be  just 
to  all  employes.  “Distribute  justice. “ 
as  Dr.  Roberts  calls  it,  can  be  secured 
and  is  secured  by  the  mine  workers  of 
our  companies  to  their  satisfaction,  for 
not  one  is  here,  in  person,  complaining, 
by  adjustments,  yardage  and  other  al- 
lowances. 

We  shall  show  that  the  trade  life  is 
not  short,  the  conditions  not  unhealthy', 
and  the  dangers  vastly  less  than  repre- 
sented, and  they,  largely,  not  incident  to 
the  place  of  employment  but  due  to  the 
gross  carelessness  of  the  men  themselves. 
And  it  is  a significant  fact,  in  view  of  all 
the  testimony  as  to  the  dangers  of  the 
employment,  that  the  reports  of  the  mine 
Inspector  for  the  year  1901  disclose  that 
out  of  the  9,037  employes  of  our  com- 
panies, there  were  only  25  fatal  acci- 
dents and  GO  non-fatal.  That  is  to  say 
the  fatal  accidents  are  a trifle  more  than 
one-fourth  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  total 
number  of  employes,  and  the  non-fatal 
accidents  a trifle  over  two-thirds  of  one 
per  cent.  Several  other  figures,  state- 
ments and  tacts  will  be  presented,  show- 
ing the  condition  of  our  men  and  their 
environment. 

Second — The  demand  for  a reduction  in 
hours  of  employment,  if  granted,  we 
shall  show  would  be  prejudicial  alike  to 
employer  and  employes.  The  nominal  ten 
hour  day  does  not  result  in  securing  an 
average  of  even  an  eight  hour  day'  in 
this  region,  and  never  has.  It  will  ap- 
pear that  this  demand  is  most  unreason- 
able and,  aside  from  crippling  the  com- 
panies, will  restrict  the  earning  eaparity 
of  the  employe.  You  cannot  graft  such 
a system  upon  the  anthracite  region,  the 
breakers  not  averaging  full  time,  without 
serious  loss  and  damage  to  everybody. 

Third — The  third  demand,  if  I can 
grasp  its  interpretation  by  Mr.  Mitchell, 
and  he  stands  alone  in  the  attempt,  in- 
volves not  merely  the  question  of  pav- 
ment  by  weight,  but  payment  for  each 
ton  of  2240  pounds  as  it  comes  from  the 
mine.  This  is  impracticable,  as  we  shall 
show,  and  manifestly  unfair.  “Miners' 
ton”  is  a misnomer  and  is  confusing. 
“Miners’  weight,”  and  at  all  our  col- 
lieries pay'ment  is  by  t his  method,  has  a 
definite  and  fixed  meaning  in  law  and 
practice.  Tt  has  been  interpreted  by'  the 
highest  court  of  this  commonwealth. 
Whatever  quantity  of  material,  coal, 
bone,  slate,  refuse,  etc.,  coming  from  the 
mine,  is  required  and  necessary’  to  yield, 
when  prepared  through  the  breaker,  a 
ton  of  2240  pounds  is  the  miners’  weight. 
This  quantity,  as  you  can  readily  see, 
varies  with  the  seams  and  veins  and  their 
character.  It  contemplates  prepared 
sizes,  and  always  has.  The  mine  workers 
do  not  ask  pay  for  anything  but  coal, 


they  say.  That  is  just  what  we  shall 
prove  they’  have  been  paid  for  by  our 
companies,  and  more.  The  mine  worker 
has  the  advantage  now-a-days  of  send- 
ing out  hundreds  of  pounds  of  material 
more  than  in  past  years,  for  which  he  is 
credited  by  weight,  owing  to  the  utiliza- 
tion of  the  smaller  sizes  below  pre- 
pared. This  more  than  offsets  the  larger 
quantity'  required  to  yield  a ton  for  the 
market,  owing  to  the  streaky  and  lami- 
nated veins  now  being  worked.  I think 
we  shall  be  able  to  satisfy  the  commis- 
sion that  the  present  method  of  pay’ment 
by  miners'  weight  is  eminently  fair  to 
all  concerned. 

Fourth— The  fourth  demand  has  no 
place  here,  and  it  requires  considerable 
patience  to  enter  upon  its  discussion.  As 
evidence  has  been  received  to  support  it. 
we  shall  answer  it,  reserving  our  un- 
doubted right  to  argue  against  its  con- 
sideration by  the  commission.  The  at- 
titude of  our  companies  appears  in  the 
letters  of  Mr.  Thomas,  chairman  of  the 
board  of  directors,  incorporated  in  the 
report  of  Commissioner  Wright,  and  now 
in  evidence.  There  is  no  objection  to 
labor  organizing,  no  objection  to  our  em- 
ployes acting  together,  no  denial  of  their 
right  to  be  heard  by’  committees  and  no 
discrimination  against  the  persons  com- 
posing them.  We  have  no  blacklist  and 
never  heard  of  one.  This  particular  or- 
ganization is  an  anomaly.  It  seeks  to 
put  every  miner  on  an  equality  with  his 
neighbor.  Y'ou  cannot  do  this.  Gi\'en 
equal  opportunities,  the  results  are  un- 
equal. Two  factors  have  heretofore  en- 
tered into  the  whole  matter  of  wages — 
the  ability  and  disposition  of  the  worker 
is  the  greatest  factor,  the  place  and  sur- 
roundings the  other.  The  United  Mine 
Workers  tend  to  destroy  the  first.  It  is 
“labor's  war  on  labor.”  We  shall  give 
y'ou  an  inkling  of  how  they  act— the  lo- 
cals, I mean — of  how  they'  destroy  indi- 
vidual effort,  curb  ambition,  restrict 
earning  capacity',  encourage  idleness  and 
discontent,  breed  lack  of  respect  of  au- 
thority' and  destroy  discipline.  We  are 
not  attacking  Mr.  Mitchell  or  Mr.  Nich- 
olls,  or  anybody’  else.  We  did  not  take 
the  initiative  in  this  matter.  We  are  de- 
fending ourselves  against  the  aggressions 
of  the  understrappers  they  either  do  not 
or  cannot  control,  and  we  respectfully 
ask  and  demand  relief. 

That  American  standard  of  living  to 
which  our  friends  on  the  other  side  re- 
fer. co\rers  something  besides  wages  It 
embraces  the  right  to  sell  one's  labor 
without  let  or  hindrance  or  intimidation 
or  abuse.  It  also  involves  respect  f r 
property  rights. 

Under  the  American  flag  there  is  no 
place  for  the  boy’cott. 

Major  Warren  next  presented  in  evi- 
dence the  state  report  of  the  case  of 
Drake  et  al.  against  Lacoe  et  al.,  to 
prove  that  the  term  “miners'  weight” 
is  not  a fiction  but  a legal  term,  made 
so  by’  the  Supreme  court.  He  also  of- 
fered in  evidence  copies  of  the  various 
charters  under  which  the  two  compan- 
ies are  working. 

Captain  May  Called. 

W.  A.  May.  of  Scranton,  general  man- 
ager of  the  Erie's  coal  properties,  was 
the  first  witness  called  by  Major  War- 
ren. He  told  that  he  had  had  experi- 
ence in  coal  mines  in  Western  Penn- 
sylvania. Indiana,  Illinois.  Colorado. 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee:  that  he  be- 

gan his  experience  as  a coal  man  on 


the  engineer  corps  of  the  Hillside  Coal 
and  Iron  company,  and  in  1883  became 
its  superintendent,  and  that  in  1901  he 
became  general  manager  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Coal  company  and  the  Hill- 
side company. 

After  recounting  the  improvements 
made  in  mining  operations  during  the 
past  twenty  years,  the  witness  pro- 
ceeded to  tell  about  conditions  in  the 
territory  in  which  his  companies  oper- 
ate. 

In  Forest  City,  the  Hillside  company 
encouraged  the  men  to  own  their  own 
homes  by  giving  them  easy  terms  on 
land  and  furnishing  lumber  at  cost. 

The  companies  never  place  any  lim- 
itation on  the  miners’  earning  capac- 
ity, he  went  on  to  say.  Miners  limit 
their  own  earning  capacity.  They  leave 
the  mine  as  early  as  8.30  o’clock  in 
the  morning.  The  average  day  of  a 
contract  miner  is  six  hours. 

A pump-runner  works  twelve  hours 
a day,  but  he  has  nothing  to  do  except 
watch  the  machine  and  oil  it  when 
necessary.  Hoisting  engineers  work 
twelve  hours  and  some  of  them  have 
hard  tasks.  Many  of  them,  however, 
do  not  work  anything  like  twelve  hours. 
The  night-shift  engineers  have  con- 
siderable leisure.  Engineers,  generally 
speaking,  work  the  time  the  breaker 
works. 

Asked  if  in  his  opinion  miners  are 
forced  to  send  their  boys  to  work  at 
an  early  age  because  of  low  wages, 
Mr.  May  said:  “I  don’t  see  why  any 

man  can  not  earn  enough,  if  he  is  in- 
dustrious, to  properly  take  care  of  his 
family.”  , 

He  freo.uently  heard  of  Instances  of 
parents  sending  their  boys  to  work,  at 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

an  early  age,  because  they  would  not 
go  to  school.  Instances  were  cited  of 
foremen  doing  this. 

‘‘If  I had  my  way  about  it,”  said  the 
witness,  “I  would  not  have  a boy 
around  the  mines  at  all.” 

His  companies,  he  said,  were  agree- 
able to  raising  the  age  limit.  Fourteen 
years  for  outside  work  and  sixteen  for 
inside  work  were,  in  his  opinion,  rea- 
sonable limitations. 

Dockage  at  the  Hillside  Coal  and  Iron 
company’s  collieries  amounted  in  1901 
to  3 yz  per  cent.  At  the  Pennsylvania 
collieries  it  was  1 5-100  per  cent. 

Work  of  Docking'  Boss. 

The  witness  was  agreeable  to  having 
check-weighman,  but  emphatically  oji- 
posed  to  check  docking  bosses.  The 
work  of  the  docking  boss,  he  explained, 
was  directed  wholly  by  judgment.  Con- 
stant bickerings  would  result  from 
having  two  docking  bosses. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  if  Mr.  May  would 
be  willing  to  take  one  of  the  union 
miners  as  a docking  boss.  Mr.  May 
answered:  ‘‘Most  certainly,  if  he  is  a 

good  man  ” 

“You  wouldn’t  let  us  pick  the  dock- 
ing boss,  would  you?”  asked  Mr.  Dar- 
row. 

“Not  just  yet  awhile,”  interrupted 
Major  Warren.  “We  have  not  reached 
the  stage  where  you  will  pick  out  our 
employes.” 

Falls  of  roof,  the  witness  went  on  to 
say,  are  the  most  frequent  causes  of 
accident,  and  carelessness  on  the  part 
of  the  miner  contributes  largely  to  this 
cause.  Frequent  cautions  are  given,  but 
the  men  continue  to  be  careless.  The 
company  furnishes  a book  of  precau- 
tionary suggestions.  Boys  have  been 


137 

discharged  for  riding  on  the  front 
bumpers  of  cars,  but  it  is  one  of  the 
most  common  of  practices  still.  Tin- 
anxiety  of  the  miner  to  get  out  early, 
and  the  contempt  he  gets  for  dangers 
through  familiarity  are  immediate 
causes  of  carelessness.  If  the  miner 
would  stay  in  the  mine  a reasonable 
length  of  time  to  protect  his  laboret. 
the  number  of  accidents  would  be  ma- 
terially lessened. 

The  percentage  of  waste  of  coal  in 
the  breaker  is  from  ten  to  thirty,  the 
witness  said.  No  matter  how  careful 
and  conscientious  the  miner  may  be, 
the  coal  he  sends  out  will  be  dirty.  It 
is  impossible  to  separate  from  the  coal 
all  the  impurities  it  contains,  until  the 
coal  goes  through  the  breaker,  and, 
then,  it  can  not  all  be  taken  out.  There 
is  a large  waste  in  the  breaker  besides 
the  waste  resulting  from  impurities. 

The  witness  reiterated  that  the  only 
restrictions  on  a miner’s  earning  capac- 
ity is  that  which  he  himself  imposes. 
If  he  would  work  a reasonable  day  he 
could  increase  his  earnings  up  to  or 
possibly  beyond  what  he  is  demanding 
the  commission  shall  increase  them. 

As  to  long  hours  being  worked  by  the 
“day  wage”  men,  Mr.  May  testified  that 
the  breaker  hours  govern  the  hours  of 
this  class  of  employes,  and  the  breakers 
do  not  average  eight  hours  a day. 

Prior  to  the  advent  of  the  union,  the 
witness  declared,  there  were  few  griev- 
ances. These  were  dealt  with  in  confer- 
ence between  the  officials  and  the  men. 
The  relations  between  the  company  and 
its  employes  had  always  been  most 
pleasant. 

At  this  juncture  General  Wilson  in- 
terrupted with  the  announcement  that 
adjourning  time  had  been  reached. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  J an.  14. 

[Hrom  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  15.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  14. — Recognition 
of  the  union  was  the  subject  of  a pro- 
tracted and  interesting  discussion  while 
General  Manager  W.  A.  May,  of  the 
Erie’s  coal  department,  was  a witness 
before  the  strike  commission  today. 

Its  climax  was  reached  with  a series 
of  questions  by  Commissioner  Clark  as 
to  how  far  the  company  would  go  in 
the  way  of  collective  bargaining.  They 
brought  from  Mr.  May  an  expression 
of  his  willingness  to  allow  his  employes 
to  bring  in  an  outside  agent  to  act  for 
them  in  adjusting  grievances,  if  the 
employes  themselves  and  the  company 
officials  could  not  mutually  agree. 

Commissioner  Clark  did  not  press  his 
questioning  to  the  extent  of  inquiring 
as  to  whether  this  agent  would  be  un- 
acceptable if  an  officer  of  the  miners’ 
union.  Previously,  however,  Mr.  May 
had  said  in  answer  to  questions  by  Mr. 
Darrow  that  he  would  not  deal  with 
officers  of  the  union  who  were  not  in 
the  companies’  employ. 

After  admitting  the  right  of  the 
workmen  to  organize,  and  that  from 


the  workman’s  standpoint  organization 
was  desirable, Mr.  May  declared  against 
an  organization  of  all  the  anthracite 
men  in  one  body  to  act  jointly  in  deal- 
ing with  all  the  operators,  acting  joint- 
ly. It  would  be  a dangerous  experi- 
ment, he  said. 

Mr.  May  was  on  the  stand  for  nearly 
two  hours  of  the  morning  session  and 
gave  most  important  testimony.  His 
extreme  conscientiousness,  as  evidenced 
by  his  answers,  made  a very  apparent 
impression.  No  one  has  been  listened 
to  more  attentively. 

Gaston- Alphonse-Like. 

The  colloquy  between  Mr.  May  and 
Mr.  Darrow  on  cross  examination  be- 
came so  Gaston-Alphonse-like  that 
there  was  imminent  danger  of  it  lead- 
ing to  a motion  by  Attorney  Wolverton, 
seconded  by  President  Mitchell  and  car- 
ried unanimously,  that  the  strike  con- 
troversy be  settled  amicably  then  and 
there  and  all  hands  go  out  and  have 
something.  It  was  so  utterly  devoid  of 
the  first  semblance  of  ascerbity,  that  the 


combatative  Major  Warren  was  notice- 
ably ill  at  ease.  Once  when  Mr.  Dar- 
row took  occasion  to  remark  to  Mr. 
May  that  they  were  getting  along  very 
nicely,  Major  Warren  broke  forth  with, 
“Yes,  as  long  as  he  keeps  on  agreeing 
with  you,  you  will  get  along  nicely.” 

Major  Warren’s  tones,  rather  than 
his  words  were  calculated  to  provoke  a 
sharp  retort,  but  Mr.  Darrow  laughing- 
ly remarked: 

“Any  man  can  get  along  with  me  if 
he  will  agree  with  me.” 

Mr.  May’s  testimony  tended  to  show 
that  efficiency  and  discipline  had  been 
seriously  impaired  by  the  coming  of 
the  union:  that  the  men  employed  by 
his  companies  are  fairly  compensated 
for  their  labor;  that  the  reduction  of 
the  hours  of  labor  would  be  disadvan- 
tageous not  only  to  the  company  but 
to  the  men,  because  more  men  would 
have  to  be  hired  and  in  dull  times  there 
would  have  to  be  considerable  idle- 
ness; that  the  “Miners’  weight”  is  the 
result  of  a bargain  and  eminently  fair 
to  the  men,  and  that  a docking  boss 


138 

is  a necessity,  and  two  docking  bosses 
an  impossibility. 

Mr.  May  was  examined  in  chief  by 
Major  Warren  and  Mr.  McVeagh.  His 
cross-examination  was  conducted  by 
Mr.  Darrow,  prompted  by  Mr.  Mitchell 
and  Attorney  Murphy  of  Scranton. 

Superintendents  of  the  companies  and 
two  miners,  and  a member  of  the  union 
gave  strong  testimony  in  corroboration 
of  the  claim  that  the  union  attempts 
to  limit  a man’s  earning  capacity  and 
restrict  the  output  of  the  mines.  Presi- 
dent Mitchel  cross-examined  the  union 
miner,  George  Maxey,  of  Forest  City, 
and  by  his  questions  practically  ad- 
mitted that  the  union,  or  at  least  sub- 
divisions of  it  seek  to  restrict  a man’s 
work. 

Judge  Gray  is  expected  to  resume  his 
seat  with  the  commission  tomorrow. 


YESTERDAY’S  TESTIMONY. 

Captain  May  the  Principal  Witness. 

Opinions  as  to  Mining  Conditions. 

Reading  from  the  opinion  of  Justice 
Dean,  of  the  Supreme  court,  in  the  case 
of  Drake  against  Lacoe,  regarding  the 
term,  “miners’  weight,’’  Major  Warren 
quoted  the  following: 

Under  all  tne  evidence,  the  phrase 
“miners'  weight’’  in  18G3,  and  during  the 
years  when  the  said  coal  was  mined  by 
the  Glenwood  Coal  company,  meant  such 
quantity  of  coal,  slate  and  dirt,  as  was 
agreed  between  the  operators  and  the 
miners  to  be  sufficient  to  make  a ton  of 
prepared  coal.  We  think  this  finding  of 
the  master  correct. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  has  always  been  our 
contention,  as  I understand  it  now. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  That  is  where  they 

agreed. 

Mr.  Warren:  The  contention  of  the 

miners  here  is,  they  say  they  only  want 
payment  for  coal.  Mr.  Mitchell  said 
on  the  stand  and  in  the  same  breath  he 
says  he  wants  the  ton  to  be  2240  pounds, 
and  the  contention  arises  in  that  he  fails 
to  recognize  the  bituminous  miners'  dis- 
tinction and  the  anthracite  miners'  dis- 
tinction. The  coal  coming  from  an  an 
thracite  mine  necessarily  has  in  the  car. 
or  rather  the  material  coming  from  the 
mine  necessarily  has  in  the  car  a cer- 
tain percentage  of  that  which  is  not  coal 
of  any  size,  and  that  we  shall  show  very 
clearly,  I think,  by  our  evidence,  that 
there  is  a certain'  percentage  of  waste 
in  preparing  the  coal  through  the  break- 
er. averaging  from  about  ten  to  thirty 
per  cent.,  of  absolute  waste  I mean,  nol 
coal  at  all. 

Impure  Coal. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  I have  listened  with  con- 

siderable interest  to  what  Mr.  Warren 
has  assumed  I said.  I did  not  say  any- 
thing of  the  kind  and  my  testimony  will 
not  warrant  the  deductions  he  has  made. 
Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  I hap- 
pened to  come  from  Illinois  and  am  a 
bituminous  miner — 

Mr.  Warren:  Will  you  stand  by  the 

record  if  I show  you  where  you  said  you 
did  not  ask  for  anything  except  pay  for 
coal  ? 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Certainly,  but  not  pre 

pared  sizes.  I said  we  wanted  pay  for 
all  coal  we  mined  and  we  offered  to  re- 
duce the  price  of  mining  so  as  to  com- 
pensate the  companies  for  impurities.  1 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


never  asked  that  we  should  have  pay  for 
impurities. 

Mr.  Warren:  1 have  not  said  you  said 

you  wanted  pay  for  impurities.  My  point 
was,  your  scheme  is  absolutely  imprac- 
ticable to  engraft  upon  the  anthracite 
region,  because  you  can  never  get  a run 
of  mine  coal  without  a certain  per  cent- 
age  of  impurities  in  it.  The  miners  will 
put  a certain  portion  of  impurities  in  the 
cars  that  come  to  the  surface. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Let  me  ask  you  a ques- 

tion. What  difference  can  there  be  of 
paying  a certain  price  for  2800  pounds  or 
matter  that  comes  from  the  mine,  or  pay- 
ing a certain  price  for  2240  pounds  of  the 
same  ma.tter  if  you  make  the  prices  dif- 
ferent? It  wouldn’t  make  any  difference. 

Mr.  Warren:  If  you  regarded  it  as  ma- 
terial, but  you  are  claiming  it  is  coal. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  I never  did. 

Mr.  Warren:  I would  like  to  meet  you 

outside  and  show  you.  I want  to  show 
you  the  record  where  you  say  it. 

Mr.  Darrow:  All  we  claim  here  is  that 
the  coal  shall  be  weighed. 

Mr.  Warren:  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Of  course  the  docking 

boss  is  there  to  take  care  of  impurities 
and  I think  he  does  it  pretty  well. 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  We  want  to  pay  for 

all  the  coal  that  is  really  mined  and  sold, 
and  that  is  what  they  want  us  to  pay 
for,  so  in  that  respect  we  are  exactly 
alike. 

Mr.  Warren:  Undoubtedly,  but  they 

want  to  make  us  pay  for  2240  pounds  run 
of  mine  coal. 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  They  want  to  start 

with  2240  and  go  up  and  we  want  to 
start  with  2800  and  go  down.  It  is  a dif- 
ference betweent  tweedle  dum  and  twee- 
dle  dee  and  it  does’  not  seem  to  me  it 
ought  to  take  up  any  more  time. 

Mr.  May  Recalled. 

The  further  testimony  of  General 
Manager  May  was  substantially  as  fol- 
lows: 

By  Mr.  Warren, 

Q.  Before  taking  up  the  question  of 
the  union,  Mr.  May,  I want  to  ask  you 
what  the  miners’  weight  of  material 
yielded,  with  reference  to  the  ton  of  2240 
pounds,  when  prepared  for  the  market; 
at  2700  gross,  did  it  yield  a ton  of  pre- 
pared sizes  of  coal  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  have  to  take  in,  plus 
the  prepared  sizes,  to  make  it  yield  a 
ton  of  2240  pounds?  A.  At  some  places, 
p'ea  and  buckwheat.  It  almost  invariably 
even  included  buckwheat  coal. 

Q.  Now,  you  said  yesterday  that  you 
employed  miners.  You  do  not  emp  oy 
their  laborers,  do  you?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  They  are,  therefore,  strangers  to 
you,  so  far  as  payments  are  concerne  , 
and  anything  like  that.  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
Therefore  you  are  not  able  to  state  p si- 
tively  as  to  the  distribution  of  the  gross 
earnings  that  go  to  the  miner,  as  be- 
tween him  and  his  laborer  or  laboreis. 
if  there  are  more  than  one?  A.  No,  s r. 

Q.  By  the  bye,  will  you  please  exph  i i 
to  the  commission,  before  we  start  in 
with  today’s  work,  how  the  mistake 
came  to  be  made  with  reference  to  the 
earnings  of  the  fathers  of  those  silk  mill 
workers  in  Scranton?  A.  I shall  be  glad 
to  do  it. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  I think  that 

was  explained  up  in  Scranton. 

Mr.  Warren:  I think  not,  bishop.  Just 
state  that,  please,  Mr.  May. 

The  Witness:  I will  state  the  way  it 
occurred.  When  the  children  testified,  I 
think,  or  the  parents— I have  forgotten 


which— I went  to  the  telephone  in  the 
court  house  and  asked  for  the  earnings 
of  those  men.  The  earnings  were  sent 
me  over  the  phone  by  my  chief  clerk. 
When  he  first  gave  me  the  information, 
he  did  not  give  me  the  number  of  men 
in  the  contract.  I asked  him  for  that  in- 
formation, and  he  sent  upstairs  for  it. 
He  sent  the  boy  upstairs  for  it,  and  the 
boy  brought  down  a slip  upon  which  wai 
marked  "two,  two,  one,”  and  the  chief 
clerk  telephoned  to  me  that  information, 
“two,  two,  one.”  Thinking  it  was  two- 
handed.  two-handed  and  one-handed,  I 
reported  to  Major  Warren  that  they 
were  two-handed,  two-handed  and  one- 
handed  places;  and,  generally  speaking, 
that  is  our  understanding  always,  that 
the  laborer  gets  one-third  of  the  earn- 
ings, so  I told  Major  Warren  to  deduct 
one-third  of  the  earnings  and  that  bal- 
ance would  be  what  the  miners  got.  i 
went  to  my  office,  and,  upon  investiga 
tion,  was  very  much  mortified  to  find 
that  an  error  had  occurred.  It  was  noi 
intentional  at  all.  I discovered  that  that 
was  the  fact,  and  that  the  boy,  in  takirg 
down  the  information,  had  omitted  in 
the  first  items  the  word  “laborer.” 
where  he  should  have  said  “two  laborers, 
two  laborers  and  one  laborer.”  That  is 
the  way  the  error  occurred.  Q.  Instead 
of  being  two-handed,  two-handed  ar.d 
one-handed  places,  it  should  have  been 
“two  laborers,  two  laborers  and  one  la- 
borer?” A.  Yes,  sir. 

Relations  Amicable. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  May,  you  told  us  yester- 
day that  the  relations  between  the  men 
and  the  company,  speaking  broadly,  prior 
to  1900,  were  amicable?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  the  strike  of  1900  and  the  re- 
sumption of  work,  what  did  you  do  in 
line  with  the  posted  notices,  to  treat 
with  the  men  and  the  committees  they 
might  present  for  grievances  and  mat- 
ters of  that  kind?  What  attitude  did  you 
take  and  the  men  under  you,  so  far  as 
you  know,  as  to  those  matters?  A. 
Whenever  the  men  sent  a committee  to 
me,  they  w’ere  met  and  the  questions 
w'ere  discussed,  and  wherever  possible  or 
practicable,  where  they  were  in  the  na- 
ture of  grievances,  they  were  corrected. 
T never  refused  to  meet  any  committee 
of  our  men,  or  any  one  man.  I want  to 
make  an  explanation  there,  or  my  an- 
swer may  be  misunderstood.  In  saying 
that,  of  course,  the  court  understand* 
that  there  is  a method  of  procedure  in 
this,  as  in  any  other  organization.  The 
men  are  espected  to  go  to  the  foreman 
first,  then  to  the  superintendent,  and 
then  they  come  to  me.  Sometimes  tha. 
cuestion  is  asked  them,  and  they  are  sent 
back  to  those  in  authority. 

By  Commissioner  Spalding: 

Q Do  not  your  men  feel  timid  ah  ut 
making  complaints,  not  to  you,  but  to 
the  under-bosses,  before  they  get  to  you? 
A.  Well,  it  is  possible  that  they  may  feel 
timid,  but  the  understanding  is,  bishop, 
that  our  foremen  must  listen  to  their 
men.  Q.  It  must  not  be  counted  any- 
thing against  a man  that  he  makes  a 
complaint?  A.  No,  sir;  it  must  not. 

It  must  not  be  to  his  disadvantage?  A 
No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  discriminations 
ugainst  men  composing  committees  who 
may  have  presented  grievances  or  o.  n- 
ferred  with  officials  of  the  company.  A 
No.  sir.  Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  such  a 
thing?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Before  I forget  It,  have  you  got  rny 
blacklist  in  your  company?  A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Or  have  you  ever  had?  A.  No,  sir. 


Commissioner  Wright:  Have  other 

companies  ever  informed  you  of  their 
blacklists?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  what  is  the  effect  as  you  have 
observed  it,  upon  the  work,  the  earning 
capacity,  the  opportunity  to  labor  of  your 
men  since  the  entrance  of  the  union 
there?  A.  Why,  there  is  less  efficiency 
and  there  is  a lack  of  discipline.  There 
is  interference  with  authority  and  there 
is  tyranny  of  other  workmen. 

Q.  What  effect  has  it  on  the  ability  of 
the  honest  worker  to  earn  money?  A. 
Why,  it  limits  him. 

Mr.  Warren:  We  offer  in  evidence 

the  following,  which  was  posted  at  No.  5 
shaft  of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company: 
“U.  M.  W.  of  A. 

“Notice. 

“On  and  after  this  date  (May,  1902),  no 
miner  or  laborer  shall  load  a car  of  coal 
with  over  12  inches  of  topping  on,  with 
a penalty  of  $5  fine  for  first  offense,  and 
$10  fine  or  expulsion  for  second  offense. 

“By  order  of  General  Grievance  Com.” 

Mr.  Darrow:  Do  you  claim  any  rule 

of  the  company  to  put  on  any  more  than 
twelve  inches? 

Mr.  Warren:  We  claim,  Mr.  May  said 
yesterday,  very  clearly  in  certain  veins 
they  could  load  18  inches.  They  were 
credited  with  all  the  material  in  the  car 
and  you  gentlemen  have  restricted  their 
earning  capacity  by  fining  them  and  re- 
ducing them  to  12  inches  topping. 

By  Commissioner  Wright: 

Q.  Did  they  used  to  pay  by  the  car  A. 
Not  at  this  colliery,  that  is,  not  in  my 
time,  not  to  my  knowledge. 

By  Commissioner  Spalding: 

Q.  Did  you  formerly  pay  by  the  car?  A. 
Yes.  we  changed  it. 

Q.  Did  you  find  it  more  satisfactory  to 
pay  by  weight?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Wright: 

Q.  What  was  the  cause  of  making  this 
change?  A.  The  men  requested  it.  Q. 
What  did  it  cost  the  company  to  make 
the  change?  A.  It  didn’t  cost  us  as  much 
as  it  would  ordinarily,  that  is  at  my 
own  place,  because  where  wc  made  the 
changes  we  have  what  are  called  side 
hill  breakers.  The  coal  goes  in  on  a level 
with  the  head  of  the  breaker  and  all  we 
needed  to  do  was  to  put  in  these  scales 
and  make  little  changes  around  the  head. 

I would  say  it  did  not  cost  us  over  be- 
tween five  hundred  and  a thousand  dol  - 
lars  in  each  case. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  You  mean  the  cost  of  changing  the 
construction  was  not  more  than  than?  A. 
No,  sir,  the  entire  cost.  Q.  You  do  not 
mean  the  cost  of  coal?  A.  Oh,  no,  I mean 
the  cost  of  putting  in  the  scales.  Q.  Now 
I ask  you,  what  was  that  in  the  way  of 
an  additional  cost  upon  the  cost  of  coal, 
the  labor  cost  of  coal,  what  did  it  result 
in;  did  it  result  in  an  additional  cost  to 
the  company  in  the  output  there?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

An  Impertinent  Employe. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  May,  you  have  outlined 
certain  effects  of  the  influence  upon  your 
men.  I understand  you  to  say  you  have 
spoken  of  the  effect  upon  the  discipline. 
Will  you  not  please  tell  us,  if  you  can,  a 
little  more  clearly  in  what  way  it  has 
affected  the  discipline  necessary  for  the 
proper  organization  of  your  company?  A. 
Well,  I will  give  you— of  course,  it  is 
very  difficult  to  remember  everything— 
one  incident  was  related  to  me  at  Clif- 
ford shaft.  The  driver  was  doing  noth- 
ing and  the  mine  foreman  asked  him  to 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


clean  the  road,  wanted  to  have  the  road 
in  good  shape.  The  driver  told  him  to 
go  to  hell,  that  that  was  not  his  business 
and  he  was  not  going  to  do  it.  What  the 
foreman  should  have  done  was  to  dis- 
charge the  fellow,  but  because  of  the 
feeling  he  let  it  go.  I would  have  dis- 
charged him. 

Commissioner  Clark:  I would  like  to 

learn  how  you  connect  this  remark  of 
this  man  with  the  union? 

The  Witness:  Only  the  effect  that  the 

organization  had  upon  the  minds  of  the 
men  themselves,  that  is  all. 

By  Commissioner  Spalding: 

Q.  It  made  them  more  independent?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  Do  you  think  that  is  a bad 
thing?  A.  Sometimes  it  is. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  You  think  no  such  language  was 
used  before  the  union  got  there?  A.  1 
don’t  know  about  that.  T)/e  union  made 
none  of  us  more  moral.  Q.  You  mean 
none  of  the  employes?  A.  None  of  us 
either;  it  made  it  rather  worse. 

Commissioner  Clark:  Do  you  not  think 

that  the  failure  of  the  foreman  to  prop- 
erly discipline  that  man  had  just  as  bad 
an  effect  upon  the  discipline  of  the  men 
as  the  remark  or  insubordination  of  the 
man  himself? 

The  Witness:  It  had  a bad  effect;  I will 
admit  that. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  Now,  tell  me  why  since  the  advent  of 
the  union  an  employe  guilty  of  such  an 
act  as  that  would  not  be  discharged,  if 
you  know?  A.  Because  of  the  fear  that 
the  mine  might  have  to  shut  down. 

Mr.  May  here  told  that  coal  and  iron 
police  were  an  absolute  necessity  dur- 
ing the  last  strike,  because  the  local 
authorities  could  not  give  the  company 
protection.  The  coal  and  iron  police 
employed  by  his  company,  he  said,  were 
recruited  from  among  students,  college 
men,  tradesmen  and  the  like,  and  all 
of  them  from  Scranton  and  vicinity. 
None  were  employed  who  were  not 
known  to  be  reliable.  They  were  under 
command  of  Captain  Foote,  an  auditor 
of  the  company  who  has  had  thirteen 
years  experience  in  the  national  guard. 
They  were  sober,  well-behaved  intelli- 
gent men,  the  witness  declared. 

Major  Warren  presented  the  statutes 
authorizing  the  employment  of  coal  and 
iron  police,  and  specifying  their  duties 
and  powers. 

A Week  of  Terror. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  Now,  I want  to  ask  you  one  or  two 
questions  about  your  efforts  to  get  the 
collieries  at  work  mining  and  shipping 
coal.  I want  to  ask  you  this.  You  were 
there,  of  course,  and  saw  more  or  less  of 
the  disturbances  through  the  region?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  you  opinion,  had  the  men  been 
let  alone  by  the  strikers  and  those  in 
sympathy  with  them,  and  had  the  region 
been  freed  of  this  terrorism  and  intimida- 
tion and  abuse,  and  scab  business,  could 
you  have  mined  coal  and  could  you  have 
gotten  men  there  to  work?  A.  I belfeve 
we  could.  We  were  making  progress 
with  our  men  until  the  wild  week  of 
September  22,  when  it  appeared  that  vio- 
lence was  taking  place  from  Forest  City 
to  Nanticoke.  It  was  a week  of  trial 
to  all  of  us.  There  was  dynamiting  at 
one  place  and  rioting  at  another.  It 
was  the  week  that  the  militia  was  called 
out.  At  that  time  it  looked  probable 


139 


that  we  could  get  our  collieries  started, 
but  after  that  we  could  not  do  anything 
— the  men  seemed  to  be  afraid  and  we 
could  do  very  little. 

Q.  After  the  work  resumed,  in  the  lat- 
ter part  of  October,  as  I understand  it, 
did  you  get  instructions  from  the  presi- 
dent of  the  company  to  let  by-gones  be 
by-gones  and  take  the  men  back,  speak- 
ing generally  now?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q.  And 
did  you  do  that,  speaking  generally.  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

In  answer  to  questions  by  Bishop 
Spalding  the  witness  said  there  were 
1,500  names  on  the  pay  roll,  when  the 
“wild  week”  of  Sept.  22-29  came;  that 
about  fifty  were  cutting  coal  and  that 
the  others  were  employed  at  washeries, 
and  as  guards.  Between  4,000  and  5,000 
tons  of  coal  a day  were  produced,  In- 
clusive of  the  output  of  the  washeries. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  Mr.  May,  let  me  ask  you,  assuming 
now  the  commission  were  to  grant  the 
demands  of  the  mine  workers  and  reduce 
the  working  hours  at  the  breaker — any 
reduction  over  the  present  working  hours 
—what  effect  would  that  have,  if  any, 
upon  the  earning  capacity  of  the  men 
themselves,  under  the  conditions  preva- 
lent, and  necessarily  prevalent,  in  the 
anthracite  region?  A.  It  would  reduce 
their  earning  capacity. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  Do  you  mean 
the  contract  miners? 

The  Witness:  No;  the  day  men. 

Mr.  Warren:  It  does  not  affect  the 
contract  miner,  the  demand  is  not  with 
him,  the  demand  is  as  to  company  men. 

Commissioner  Clark:  Explain  why. 

The  Witness:  Because  they  would  not 
have  the  opportunity  of  working  ten 
hours.  Of  course,  if  the  wage  remained 
the  same,  it  would  not  affect  their  earn- 
ing in  that  respect. 

Commissioner  Clark:  Well,  their  re- 

quest is  for  an  eight-hour  day,  with  the 
present  ten  hour's  pay,  is  it  not? 

The  Witness:  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Clark:  Well,  if  that 

were  granted,  do  you  presume  that  it 
would  reduce  their  earning  capacity? 

The  Witness:  It  would  increase  the 
number  of  men  required  to  do  the  work, 
and  in  dull  times  there  would  be  less 
work  for  the  number. 

Commissioner  Clark:  Do  your  break- 
ers run  an  average  of  ten  hours  a day? 

The  witness:  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  Clark:  Do  they  run  an 
average  of  eight  hours  a day? 

The  Witness:  I do  not  believe  they  do. 

Examination  Concluded. 

Mr.  Warren  concluded  his.  examina- 
tion by  having  the  witness  identify  and 
present  a copy  of  the  printed  instruc- 
tions given  to  the  companies’  coal  and 
iron  police.  Former  Attorney  General 
MacVeagh  then  took  up  the  examina- 
tion of  Mr.  May. 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh: 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  May,  yesterday  I am  not 
sure  that  I made  myself  clear,  and  I 
wanted  to  be  clear  upon  both  points.  Mr. 
Mitchell  seemed  to  think  there  was  some 
advantage  to  the  miners  in  having  a 
smaller  unit  of  weight  as  the  arbitrary 
unit,  rather  than  your  arbitrary  unit  of 
2800  pounds.  If,  as  a matter  of  fact,  you 
want  to  pay  the  miners  for  all  the  coal 
you  secure  out  of  the  materials  they  send 
up,  can  it  make  any  difference  to  them 
to  have  a smaller  unit  for  the  arbitrary 
unit  in  the  first  instance?  A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  Nor  can  it  make  any  disadvantage 


140 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


to  them  to  have  your  larger  unit?  A. 
No,  sir.  Q.  Well,  now,  if  as  a matter  of 
fact  you  wish  to  pay  for  all  the  coal, 
and  Mr.  Mitchell  and  our  friends  on  the 
other  side  only  wish  pay  for  all  the 
coal  secured  out  of  the  material  from  the 
mine,  if  you  agree  that  that  is  what  is 
desired,  what  is  the  necessity  of  a dock- 
ing boss  at  all?  He  says  he  wants  two, 
so  that  he  can  appoint  one.  You  say  you 
only  want  one,  and  you  prefer  to  appoint 
him.  If,  however,  as  a matter  of  fact, 
sooner  or  later  you  get  at  the  actual 
amount  of  coal  and  pay  for  that,  what  is 
the  advantage  of  a docking  boss?  In 
other  words,  suppose  your  docking  boss 
had  been  celebrating  John  Mitchell  Day, 
and  for  a week  afterwards  he  was  not  fit 
for  duty 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  he  was  still  cele- 

brating. (Laughter). 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh: 

Q.  that  he  was  still  celebrating 

Mitchell  Day,  and  that  you  had  to  do 
without  a docking  boss  for  a week,  and 
the  cars  which  came  up  loaded  with  ma- 
terial instead  of  being  estimated  or 
docked,  or  anything  done  in  the  absence 
of  this  gentleman,  were  turned  over  the 
tipple  into  the  car  below,  and  you  found 
at  the  end  of  the  day  that  the 
miners  at  that  breast  sent  up  to 
you  fourteen  thousand  pounds  of  ma- 
terial, as  to  which  you  thought 
there  were  probably  ten  thousand  pounds 
of  coal  (assuming  2800  would  make  a ton) 
and  you  went  on  and  gave  him  credit  for 
ten  thousand  pounds  of  coal.  Then,  at 
the  end  of  the  month,  if  you  found  you 
had  sold  less  coal  than  you  had  paid  for. 
could  you  not  pro-rate  that  deficiency 
over  the  miners,  and  if  you  had  sold 
more  coal  than  you  had  paid  for,  could 
you  not  pro-rate  that  excess  over  the 
miners,  so  as  to  pay  each  man,  or  to  pay 
the  whole  of  them  what  they  actually 
furished  you  in  coal?  What  is  the  diffi- 
culty in  that  practically?  A.  Mr.  Mac- 
Veagh, I think  there  are  two  questions 
in  one.  In  the  first  place,  docking  is  not 
generally  for  the  purpose  of  getting  an 
increased  quantity  out  of  the  men. 

Q.  Certainly  not. 

Done  for  Discipline. 

A.  It  is  done  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
cipline. That  is,  because  there  are  men 
who  will  not  send  out  clean  coal,  and  who 
will  many  times  send  out  as  much  as 
fifteen  hundred  of  rock  and  material  of 
that  kind,  docking  is  necessary,  and  it  is 
these  fellows  that  we  must  watch.  It  is 
for  that  reason  that  we  have  a docking- 
boss,  not  that  we  want  to  get  any  ma- 
terial out  of  them;  not  that  we  want  to 
get  any  coal  out  of  them.  That  is  the  rea- 
son that  we  must  have  a docking  boss. 

Q.  I understand  perfectly  why  that  was 
desirable  when  the  other  system  pre- 
vailed of  not  sending  up  all  the  material, 
but  you  testified  yesterday  that  substan 
tially  all  the  material  came  up. 

Mr.  Warren:  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  Substantially,  and  that 
a great  deal  of  it  was  mixed  up — 

Mr.  Warren:  You  must  not  misquote 

my  witness. 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh:  Q.  Oh;  that  is  not 
so?  You  do  not  get  all  that  comes  out 
of  the  mines?  A Oh.  no.  You  misunder- 
stood me,  Mr.  MacVeagh.  What  I meant 
yesterday  was  that  the  coal  came  out. 
but  in  addition  to  that  there  is  rock, 
slate  and  bone.  Q.  Oh.  yes.  A.  That 
comes  out,  and  for  which  the  men  are 
docked. 

Q.  But  now  let  us  go  a step  further. 


Suppose  they  do  send  It  up,  you  would 
not  pay  for  more  than  the  coal  you  got, 
would  you,  and  your  company  would  not 
suffer?  If  it  pays  for  the  actual  coal  it 
gets,  it  would  not  pay  more  than  what  it 
got,  would  it? 

By  Commissioner  Clark: 

Q.  If  Mr.  MacVeagh's  suggestion  wTas 
adopted,  would  the  effect  be  to  penalize 
the  good  miner  who  sent  up  clean  coal 
for  the  neglect  of  the  careless  miner,  who 
sent  up  the  bone  and  rock?  A.  It  coulu 
do  that,  yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh:  It  cou'fi  have  the 

effect  of  doing  that. 

Commissioner  Clark:  It  must  havt» 

that  effect. 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  But  it  would  not  hurt 

the  company  in  any  wav.  so  that  it  is 
not  for  the  advantage  of  tne  company  es- 
pecially, that  this  dockiner  boss  is  there: 
it  is  not  to  give  the  company  any  ad- 
vantage? A.  No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  MacVeagh: 

Q.  It  cannot  give  the  company  any  ad- 
vantage, can  it,  if  you  pay  for  all  the 
coal  you  get?  A.  No,  sir.  Q.  That  is 
what  I say.  So  that  your  docking  boss  is 
not  really  in  the  interest  of  the  company 
— that  is  what  I was  coming  to,  Mr.  Com- 
missioner; it  is  in  the  interest  of  fair 
play  between  the  miners  themselves?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  therefore  there  can  be  no  rea- 
son for  two  docking  bosses? 

A.  No,  sir.  I want . 

Q.  I wanted  to  see  just  how  that  was. 

A.  No;  I must  withdraw  that  answer. 
The  sole  idea  in  having  that  docking  boss 
is  to  make  the  coal  fit  for  market;  that 
is,  so  that  the  market  will  take  it,  and 
there  are  men  who  will  send  out  so 
much  waste  material  that  it  is  not  possi- 
ble for  us  to  clean  it  in  the  breaker. 
For  that  reason,  we  have  the  docking 
boss  to  keep  that  down. 

Q.  That  is  where  the  interest  of  the 
company  comes;  but  then,  also  that  of 
the  men,  for  the  interest  in  having  a 
docking  boss.  That  is,  it  is  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  miner  who  sends  out  good 
coal,  is  it  not? 

A.  Not  under  our  present  system.  I 
cannot  say  that  it  is. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark’s  question  would  not . 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  would  be  under 

your  system  that  you  suggest,  I take  it. 
Under  the  other  system,  where  you 
would  be  paid  for  each  pound  of  ccal, 
then  Mr.  Calrk's  suggestion  would  ceme 
in;  but  under  the  present  system  the 
miner  sells  it  direct  to  the  company,  and 
then  I think  Captain  May  is  right,  that 
it  does  not  affect  the  miner.  Mr.  Clark’s 
question  was  directed  to  your  ideal  sys- 
tem, as  I understand  it. 

Mr.'  MacVeagh:  No;  the  real  system 
we  are  both  after,  which  is  that  the 
company  shall  pay  him  for  all  the  coal 
it  gets.  That  is  what  we  have  always 
been  doing  and  what  we  want  to  do.  My 
proposition  was  that  this  docking  boss, 
in  the  first  place,  prevented  a m!n  r who 
was  not  honest  from  sending  up  a whole 
lot  of  refuse  material  at  the  expense  cf 
his  brother  miner.  In  the  first  instance, 
it  would  do  that,  and  then  also  add  to 
the  expense  of  the  company,  because  it 
would  compel  it  to  accept  a lot  of  stuff 
which  was  not  coal.  Do  you  think  it  is 
wholly  for  the  benefit  of  the  company  to 
have  a docking  boss? 

The  Witness.  As  the  general  system 
is  now;  yes. 

Q.  It  is? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  I thought  it  was  for  the  benefit  of 
the  miner  also. 


The  Acting  Chairman:  Have  you  fin- 
ished, Mr.  MacVeagh? 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  Y'es. 

Commissioner  Wright:  Did  you  give  a 
full  reply  and  explanation  in  answer  to 
the  second  part  of  Mr.  MacVeagh's 
question? 

The  Witness:  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Mr.  Warren:  Why  not  make  it  now.  if 
you  desire  to  make  a full  reply. 

The  Witness:  No,  I do  not. 

Mr.  Warren:  It  is  immaterial. 

Cross-Examination. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  Let  us  see  whether  I understand 
this  right.  I think  I understand  it  the 
way  you  do.  Major,  but  let  me  see,  first. 
Under  the  present  system  you  pay  so 
much  per  ton  or  per  pound,  as  the  case 
may  be.  A Per  miner's  weight. 

Q.  And  when  the  car  of  coal  comes 
up  and  is  docked,  of  course  it  saves  the 
company  paying  for  that  much,  what- 
ever it  is,  under  the  present  system?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  Q.  Of  course,  I am  no  saying 
you  are  docking  unjustly.  That  is  an- 
other question.  A.  I understand. 

Q.  If  some  system  w7as  adopted,  such 
as  Mr.  MacVeagh  suggests,  where  every 
pound  of  material  that  came  up  out  of 
the  earth  -was  paid  for,  then  if  you  do 
not  dock,  why  it  would  fine  the  miners 
who  sent  up  good  coal.  A I think  you 
mean  if  they  were  paid  for  every  pound 
of  coal,  not  every  pound  of  material. 

Q.  Every  pound  of  coal,  then.  A.  Y'es. 

Q.  Then  if  you  did  not  dock,  it  would 
not  make  any  difference  with  the  com- 
pany, but  it  would  fine  those  miners  who 
sent  up  good  coal;  that  is  what  I meant? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  it  would.  It  would  be  against 
the  good  miner,  in  a sense. 

Mr.  MacVeagh:  That  is  what  I meant. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  That  seems  to  me  to  be  the  case, 
unless  the  commission  looks  at  it  differ- 
ently. A.  But,  Mr.  Darrow,  we  have  at 
two  of  our  collieries,  and  I will  speak 
of  that,  a system  by  which,  at  the  end 
of  each  month,  whatever  excess  is  found 
to  exist  is  returned  to  the  miners;  and 
if  there  is  a deficiency,  the  theory  is 
that  they  would  make  it  up.  but  we 
have  never  insisted  that  they  should 
make  up  the  deficiency.  Now,  in  that 
case,  the  miner  gets  the  benefit  of  it, 
and  while  it  does  penalize,  as  Mr.  Clark 
says,  the  good  miner,  yet  it  is  an  ad- 
vantage to  him  in  that  the  general  re- 
sult is  better;  that  is.  the  percentage 
given  back  is  that  much  better,  you  un- 
derstand; that  is,  the  excess  will  be  bet- 
ter. and,  in  that  sense,  he  will  be  bene- 
fitted. 

( ommissioner  Wright:  It  puts  a pre- 
mium on  good  work? 

The  Witness:  Y'es,  sir. 

The  Acting  Chairman:  Is  that  amount 

of  excess  distributed  equally  pro  rata? 

The  Witness:  Pro  rata.  That  is  a pro- 
portion. yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  You  can  not  think  of  any  way. 
either  the  present  way  or  any  ideal  way! 
where  you  would  not  need  a docking 
boss,  can  you?  A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Darrow  I am  free  to  say  to  the 
commission  that  I can  not  think  of  any. 
Perhaps  there  is  one.  From  what  I have 
h aid  in  this  case  so  far,  however.  It 
reems  to  me  that  a docking  man  is  nec- 
essary in  some  way. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  Do  you  think 

two  are  necessary? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Most  assuredly.  1 would 

hate  to  have  a man  dock  me.  away  down 
under  the  earth,  without  knowing  any- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


thing  about  it,  and  I think  any  man 
would. 

Standard  of  Comfort. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  You  said  something  about  your  com- 
panies paying  wages  enough  to  support  a 
man  and  his  family  in  comfort — I think 
you  said  according  to  the  American 
standard,  whatever  that  is— something  we 
talk  about;  I do  not  know  what  it  is. 
without  sending  their  children  to  work. 
How  much  money  do  you  think  that  is? 
A.  Well,  it  depends  entirely  on  the  make- 
up of  the  man  and  his  family.  If  you 
will  allow  me  to  be  personal,  my  father 
did  not  get  over  $400  a year,  or  $600  a 
year  on  the  outside,  and  we  boys  were 
educated. 

Q.  I take  it  that  you  get  more  than 
that,  Captain?  A.  Yes— a little  more. 
(Laughter). 

Q.  Now,  I assume,  when  you  say  that 
your  company  pays  enough  so  that  a man 
with  a family  can  reasonably  take  care 
of  his  family  without  sending  his  children 
to  work,  that  you  did  not  say  that  with- 
out having  thought  about  it?  A.  I 
thought  about  it. 

Q.  If  you  have  not  thought  about  it, 
we  ought  to  withdraw  it.  Then  I think 
5'ou  ought  to  tell  us  what  is  a reasonable 
amount,  in  your  opinion,  for  a year’s 
wages  for  a man  and  his  family,  for  their 
comfortable  support  according  to  what 
you  conceive  to  be  the  American  stand- 
ard of  living?  A.  That  is  a very  difficult 
question  to  answer,  Mr.  Darrow. 

Q.  How  could  you  answer  Major  War- 
ren’s question  that  you  paid  enough,  un- 
less you  had  some  such  thing  in  view?  A. 
1 admit  that  there  is  ground  for  that 
criticism,  Mr.  Darrow. 

Q.  Yes?  A.  But  the  amount  depends 
much,  as  you  know,  upon  the  man  him- 
self and  upon  his  family.  I know  miners 
that  on  $500— no,  I cannot  say  that,  be- 
cause I do  not  know  how  much  they  earn 
—but  upon  what  we  consider  ordinary 
wages  have  taken  care  of  their  families, 
and  they  have  become  educated.  I do 
not  mean  to  say  that  the  miners  edu- 
cated them,  but  that  is  the  fact.  They 
were  educated  in  the  public  schools. 
They  received  an  education. 

Q.  To  what  age  do  you  thimc  the  chil- 
dren of  working  people  ought  to  be  able 
to  attend  public  school,  or  any  school? 
A.  You  mean  when  should  they  stop? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Why,  fourteen  years  is  a 
good  age;  that  is 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  if  the  children  of 
working  people  are  able  to  go  to  school 
until  they  are  fourteen  that  that  is  about 
the  most  that  ought  to  be  required?  A. 
Oh,  when  a man  stops  going  to  school 
it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  he 
can  not  educate  himself  after  that. 

Q.  No;  but  I am  figuring  on  what  you 
think  it  is  a proper  masure  as  to  what 
is  required  by  a man  with  a family  tor 
fair,  decent  support?  A.  Yes. 

The  Educational  Age  Limit. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  should  contemplate 
that  he  should  be  able  to  send  his  chil- 
dren to  school  until  they  are  fourteen  ot 
beyond  that?  A.  Well,  I do  not  believe 
that  it  is  necessary  for  a boy  to  go  to 
school  much  after  fourteen  years  of  age 
to  be  well  educated.  Q.  What  about  a 
girl?  A.  Girls  don’t  work  in  the  mines. 
Pardon  me—  Q.  You  catch  my  point?  A. 
Yes.  Of  course  it  depends  on  what  she 
expects  to  become. 

Q.  Captain,  you  had  not  thought  of  this 
very  closely,  had  you?  A.  I thought  I 
had,  Mr.  Darrow. 


Q.  You  thought  you  had,  but  do  you 
think  so  now?  A.  No;  I do  not  think  I 
thought  of  it  as  closely  as  I thought  I 
had. 

Q.  Would  you  not  prefer  that  you  and 
I should  not  have  any  controversy  over 
it,  but  should  leave  it  to  the  commission, 
as  to  what  is  a reasonable  amount?  A.  I 
should  be  perfectly  satisfied  to  do  that. 

Q.  I think  that  is  the  best  way,  and  it 
will  save  time. 

Q.  Running  back  over  a period  of  five 
or  six  years,  the  production  of  coal  has 
varied,  has  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  We  can  say  generally  that  it  has 
been  due  to  market  conditions?  A.  To 
market  conditions;  yes.  sir. 

Q.  When  has  the  production  of  coal 
been  the  greatest,  per  man  producirg. 
say  in  the  last  five  or  six  years?  A.  As 
I remember  it,  the  production  in  1900 
per  man  inside  was  four  tons  per  da  . 
and  in  1901  it  was  three  and  a quar- 
ter. Of  course,  that  applies  only  1o  the 
Plillside  Coal  and  Iron  company. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  it  was  previous 
to  1900?  A.  I do  not  remember.  If  we 
filed  the  figures,  we  have  them. 

Coal  Production  Increasing. 

Q.  The  production  of  coal  was  greater 
in  1901  than  in  any  previous  year,  was  it 
not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  greater  in  1900  than  it 
was  a year  or  two  previous  to  that,  r r 
two  or  three  years  previous?  A.  As 
nearly  as  I remember  it.  Q.  It  has  been 
increasing,  and  increasing  materially? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  it  has  been  increasing. 

Q.  You  were  through  the  strike  of 
1900? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  for  the  men  or  against 
them  in  their  demands  for  an  increase? 

A.  I was  against  them. 

Q.  You  thought  they  did  not  deserve  an 
increase? 

A.  That  was  my  opinion. 

Q.  Have  you  changed  your  mind,  on 
mature  consideration,  since.  Captain. 

A.  Yes.  (Laughter). 

Q.  Y’ou  rather  think  now,  that  it  was 
all  right  to  give  them  that  ten  per  cent? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  To  quote  my  esteemed  friend.  Gen- 
eral MacVeagh,  would  you  be  surprised, 
in  a year  or  two,  to  find  out  that  your 
mind  underwent  a similar  change  in  re- 
lation to  the  recent  demand? 

A.  Emerson  says  it  is  a very  weak 
man  who  is  afraid  to  be.  inconsistent. 
(Laughter). 

Q.  We  will  adopt  Emerson’s  position  on 
that. 

Q.  Captain,  you  never  belonged  to  a 
trade  union,  I take  it?  A.  No,  sir.  Q. 
You  have  been  thrown  in  life  with  a 
class  of  people  and  in  an  environment 
that  was  hostile  to  trade  unionism,  have 
you  not,  as  we  all  get  on  one  side  or  the- 
other?  A.  I have  always  been  that  way. 
Q.  Yes.  That  is,  you  have  always  been 
hostile  to  trade  unionism?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  As  you  are  growing  a little  o’der, 
we  all  mellow  down  some  with  age,  do 
you  find  your  opinions  modifying  on  that 
subject?  A.  I think  they  are.  * 

Q.  I believe  you  answered  Major  War- 
ren that  you  did  believe  in  trade  union- 
ism now?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  since  you  have  believed 
in  that?  A.  Oh,  I could  not  tell  you,  Mr. 
Darrow,  it  is  a growth;  I don’t  know; 
you  don’t  know  when  spring  comes. 

Q.  Captain,  you  know  that  men  ap- 
proach questions  from  opposite  stand- 
points and  opposite  interests  and  are  not 
apt  to  look  at  it  quite  the  same?  A.  That 


141 


is  true.  You  remember  the  story  of  the 
two  men  looking  at  the  shield. 

Q.  Ifes,  one  from  the  one  side  and  the 
other  from  the  other.  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Without  saying  anybody  is  to  blame 
for  it,  the  financial  interest  of  the  em- 
ployer is  to  get  as  much  coal  as  he  can 
at  the  cheapest  price,  and  the  financial 
interest  of  the  working  man  is  to  get  as 
big  a price  as  he  can  for  the  smail  st 
amount  of  coal,  is  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Those  are  the  two  standpoints  from 
which  these  bodies  of  men  naturally 
operate,  unless  they  are  broad-minded 
and  try  to  get  at  justice  the  best  they 
can,  is  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  is  a tendency  on  each  side,  by 
us  and  by  your  side,  to  be  governed  b., 
our  selfish  interest  in  these  matters?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You,  of  course,  as  genera!  manager 
of  this  company,  both  for  the  sake  of 
your  position  and  for  your  duty,  like  t ■ 
make  a good  showing?  A.  Y'es,  sir. 

Q.  The  men,  on  the  other  hand,  th 
same  as  you  individually,  want  to  get  as 
good  living  and  as  easy  a one  as  they 
reasonably  can?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  makes  these  conflicts  that  you 
speak  about.  Now,  with  the  Pennsylva- 
nia company  and  the  Hillside  company, 
there  are  nine  thousand  men  under  one 
management?  A.  Yes,  sir;  about. 

Captain  May  Has  Modified  Views. 

Q.  You  have  grown  so  far,  or  modili:  d 
your  views  so  much,  that  you  do  recog- 
nize that  where  your  side  is  organized, 
so  one  mine  practically  controls  the  pro- 
duction of  nine  thousand  men,  it  is  not 
unreasonable  that  the  nine  thousand  men 
should  be  organized  too,  to  look  after 
their  business?  A.  That  is  not  unreason- 
able. 

Q.  However  once  you  might  have  fe  t, 
strange  as  you  might  think  it— I used 
to  think  the  same,  trade  unions  were  not 
justified  at  all— however  you  may  once 
have  felt  on  that  question,  you  now  fe  1 
they  are  justified.  A.  I think  they  are. 

Q.  Captain,  you  know  that  men  wi  o 
have  the  best  chance  in  the  wor  d for 
education,  the  best  business  adva  . :ag  s 
the  best  social  advantages,  are  a little 
better  fitted  to  cope  with  the  affairs  of 
life  than  men  who  are  poorer  and  more 
ignorant,  and  have  had  less  experience? 
A.  As  a general  proposition,  yes. 

Q.  There  are  men  here  and  there  cf 
very  limited  education  and  very  fair  ex- 
perience, seem  to  be  equal  to  most  any- 
body, but  I am  speaking  of  general  pro- 
positions. As  a general  proposition,  ihe 
owners,  the  managers  and  the  bosses  of 
these  great  institutions,  such  as  yours, 
receive  materially  higher  wages  than  ;he 
ordinary  workmen,  do  they  not?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  As  a general  proposition,  it  is  your 
endeavor  to  get  them  from  the  superi  r. 
rather  the  superior  class  of  men  for  that 
business.  A.  If  you  mean  a superior 
class,  it  is  not  in  the  sense  that  I meant 
when  I said  as  a general  proposition,  1 e- 
cause  our  effort  has  been,  my  effo  t has 
been,  to  recruit  our  managing  force  from 
our  employes  themselves. 

Q.  By  taking  the  most  competent?  A. 
Taking  the  most  competent  Q.  That  is 
what  I mean.  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  think  pretty  well  of  some  of  the 
members  of  organized  labor,  I take  it? 
A.  I have  no  fight  with  them.  I think  I 
am  on  friendly  terms  with  all  of  them. 

Q.  Even  some  those  foreigners  who 
came  down  into  your  midst  as  representa- 
tives of  organized  labor,  you  have  not 


142 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


any  unfriendly  feelings  towards  them? 
A.  No,  not  at  all. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Mitchell?  A.  I 
have  met  him.  Q.  Have  your  relations 
been  pleasant?  A.  We  have  never  had 
any  controversy;  the  controversy  was 
over  my  head. 

Q.  That  was  not  his  fault,  was  it?  A. 
Nor  mine. 

Q.  Well, we  will  not  discipline  the  higher 
members  just  now  in  this  way;  you  have 
not  any  objection,  or  would  not  have  any 
objection  to  meeting  Mr.  Mitchell  in  any 
business  relating  to  your  men,  who  saw 
fit  to  ask  him  to  represent  them,  would 
you?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  objection  based  on  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell, or  is  it  based  on  something  else?  A. 
Oh,  no,  not  on  Mr.  Mitchell  personally. 

Q.  What  is  it  based  on?  A.  It  is  based 
upon  the  fact  that  it  is  bringing  an  out- 
side element  into  our  business. 

Q.  Well  now,  what  do  you  mean  by  an 
outside  element?  A.  Why,  one  who  has 
not  the  sympathies,  that  does  not  fully 
understand  the  ground,  who  has  not 
the  interests  of  the  employer  and  the  em- 
ployed at  heart. 

Q.  Do  you  mean,  Captain  May,  that 
that  is  based  on  the  feeling  that  he  comes 
from  the  bituminous  region?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  would  have  the  same  objection 
to  meeting  Mr.  Nichols? 

(By  Mr.  MacVeagh:  More). 

A.  Yes.  sir. 

Objects  to  Outside  Influence. 

Q.  What  you  mean  to  say  to  this  com- 
mission is,  that  you  object,  that  while 
you  are  willing  to  have  a union,  you  ob- 
ject to  meeting  anybody  in  conference 
who  is  not  working  for  it?  A.  That  is  it. 

Q.  Must  they  be  working  for  you  at 
the  time?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Suppose  there  are  nine  thousand  of 
your  own  employes  organized  in  a union 
and  they  employ  somebody  to  have 
charge  of  their  affairs,  and  he  is  to  give 
up  cutting  coal  to  attend  to  the  busi- 
ness of  the  nine  thousand  men,  do  you 
object  to  meeting  with  him?  A.  Well, 
possibly  as  a last  resort — I am  not  pre- 
pared to  answer  that  question. 

Q.  You  have  not  thought  of  that?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Captain,  see  here,  we  have  got 
along  pretty  well  together  so  far,  do  you 
think — 

Mr.  Warren;  As  long  as  he  agrees  with 
you,  it  is  well. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Anybody  can  get  along 

with  me,  if  they  agree  with  me. 

Mr.  Warren:  Yes. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  it  is  a good  deal  of 
prejudice  on  the  part  of  you  and  the 
other  operators,  that  they  will  not  meet 
anybody  but  their  own  employes,  do  you 
not  think  that  is  prejudice?  A.  From  my 
standpoint,  no. 

Q.  You  would  not  be  willing  to  concede, 
for  a minute,  that  you  took  that  position 
to  gain  an  advantage  of  your  men,  would 
you?  A.  Not  personally. 

Q.  Do  you  think  anybody  else  does?  A. 
I don’t  know,  I can  only  speak  for  my- 
self. 

Q.  What  is  your  idea  about  It?  A.l 
don’t  want  to  give  an  opinion. 

Q.  I will  not  ask  you  to.  You  would 
not  concede  for  a moment,  or  you  do  not 
believe  yourself  you  would  take  any  such 
position  to  gain  any  advantage  over  your 
men?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  do  say,  that  so  far  as  you 
feel  now,  you  would  not  permit  your  men 
to  choose  such  agent  as  they  saw  fit  to 


represent  them,  although  you  would  per- 
mit them  to  be  organized?  A.  I told  you 
I was  not  prepared  to  answer  that  ques- 
tion. 

Q.  You  are  not  prepared  to  answer  it 
provided  the  agent  came  from  your  own 
company  and  then  ceased  work?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Suppose  the  agent  had  formerly  been 
in  the  employ  of  the  D.,  L.  & W.  and  you 
had  no  personal  objection  to  him,  you 
believed  he  was  a gentleman  and  a fair- 
minded  man.  so  far  as  a man  can  be 
when  he  is  interested  in  a question,  would 
you  object  to  him?  A.  I am  not  prepared 
to  answer  that  question. 

Q.  Then,  Captain,  you  are  not  prepared 
to  say  that  it  is  unreasonable  that  your 
men  should  choose  the  man  or  the  com- 
mittee whom  they  wished  to  represent 
them,  just  as  your  company  does,  are 
you?  A.  I think  we  can  arrive  at  an  un- 
derstanding without  such  a representa- 
tive. 

Q.  That  does  not  answer  my  question— 

Commissioner  Clark’s  Question. 

By  Commissioner  Clark: 

Q.  Let  me  ask  a question  right  there. 
You  admit  the  right  of  the  men  to  organ- 
ize? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  I believe  you  say  you  are  willing  to 
meet  committees  of  your  employes? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Representing  your  employes? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  We  will  suppose  you  have  met  such 
committee  and  that  you  and  the  com- 
mittee find  it  impossible  to  agree,  do  you 
then  think  it  is  unreasonable  for  them  to 
bring  in  such  agent  as  they  may  have  se- 
lected to  represent  them,  to  use  further 
efforts  to  bring  about  a pleasant  and 
amicable  adjustment  of  the  questions  at 
difference? 

A.  I think  they  could  bring  in  another 
agent. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  if  that  policy  was 
adopted  and  the  practice  followed  for 
a while,  it  would  probably  result  in  bet- 
ter understandings  and  better  relations? 

A.  It  might  do  that. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  Now,  Captain,  a few  more  matters 
I want  to  inquire  into.  You  own  men 
have  a local,  do  they  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  object  to  meeting  them? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Suppose  the  president  of  the  local 
should  come  up  to  you  tomorrow  morn- 
ing and  say  “Now,  Captain  May,  we  have 
appointed  docking  bosses  for  each  one  of 
your  collieries.  We  are  down  here  in  the 
ground  minjng  coal  and  we  want  to  ap- 
point members  of  our  local,  we  will  get 
good,  honest  men  and  we  want  them  to 
do  the  docking.  We  are  prepared  to  pen- 
sion your  men,  or  give  them  a job,  or 
something,  so  they  will  not  suffer,  but 
we  want  our  men  in  place  of  yours,”  what 
would  you  think  of  that  proposition?  A. 
I wouldn’t  think  it  a good  proposition. 

Q.  That  is,  you  would  not  think  it  was 
fair  to  have  other  men  dock  your  coal? 
A.  No,  I don’t.  Q.  That  is  what  you 
mean  *by  it.  Do  you  think  it  is  any 
fairer  for  you  to  dock  their  coal?  A. 
Yes,  I do. 

Q.  Why?  A.  Because  the  result  of 
operation  depends  upon  the  management 
of  the  company  itself,  and  they  should 
have  the  control  of  such  things  as  that. 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question.  I 
want  you  to  put  yourself  in  our  place 
once.  Here  is  a miner,  down  under  the 
ground,  perhaps  a mile  or  two  away. 
The  conditions  under  which  he  works 


are  not  the  pleasantest  in  the  world.  He 
gets  out  a car  of  coal  and  he  sends  It 
up  there  where  he  cannot  see  it,  and 
none  of  his  officers  or  friends  can  see  it, 
and  you  dump  the  coal  over  i nto  a 
chute,  and  while  it  is  running  down 
somebody  guesses  how  much  there  is, 
and  every  pound  of  dockage  goes  to  the 
company,  and  every  pound  he  loses,  and 
in  that  way  he  gets  paid  for  the  coal. 
Do  you  thing  it  is  unreasonable,  from 
his  standpoint,  he  should  want  some- 
body to  see  how  much  he  is  docked?  A. 
No,  I don’t  think  it  is,  from  his  stand- 
point. 

Different  View  Points. 

Q.  We  have  to  look  at  this  from  each 
other’s  standpoint.  A.  True. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  any  diffi- 
culty where  each  side  has  agreed  on  a 
docking  boss,  or  whether  there  has  been 
a check  docking  boss?  A.  I have  no 
knowledge  on  the  subject. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think,  Captain,  if  you 
people  would  approach  this  organization 
with  a conciliatory  spirit,  and  try  to  live 
together  and  work  to  each  other’s  bene- 
fit, that  to  organize  this  vast  body  of 
men  in  the  region  and  to  officer  it  in  the 
right  way,  to  recognize  it  and  deal  with 
it,  might  work  out  good  to  both  parties? 
A.  As  a mass?  You  mean  all  of  them? 

A.  Do  you  not  think  that  to  organize 
the  men,  and  recognize  the  organization 
and  meet  with  it,  and  try  to  help  each 
other  along,  might  benefit  this  whole  re- 
gion? A.  You  mean  all  the  workers;  that 

is,  the  entire  mine  workers?  Q.  Yes.  A. 
I think  it  is  a dangerous  experiment. 

Q.  You  people  who  are  producers,  work 
together,  more  or  less,  do  you  not?  A. 
We  do,  in  a sense.  Q.  That  sense  is  pret- 
ty close,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Warren:  Just  a minute.  We  object 
to  that.  That  is  not  cross  examination. 

Q.  Well,  Captain,  you  and  I agree  on 
that  question,  but  that  has  nothing  to 
do  with  whether  you  would  think  you 
could  better  your  condition,  and  maybe 
better  your  neighbor’s  at  the  same  time, 
by  uniting  with  him  and  associating  with 
him.  A.  I do  not  agree  to  it  at  all. 

Q.  You  belong  to  various  organizations, 
I take  it?  A.  I belong  to  some;  yes.  sir. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  think  that  inter- 
feres with  your  right  to  do  as  you  please? 
A.  Well,  they  are  in  particular  direc- 
tions. That  is  one  thing  that  I am  radi- 
cal upon.  I want  to  do  about  as  I 
please. 

Q.  You  have  said,  however,  that  you 
believed  the  union  was  a proper  thing — 
or  a union?  A.  I see  no  objection  to  it 
on  the  part  of  the  men,  but  I am  now 
speaking  personally. 

Q.  And  you  rather  approve  of  it.  do 
you  not?  A.  Personally.  I do  not  want 

it.  I mean  now,  for  myself,  as  to  belong- 
ing to  it. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  Suppose  a 

man  wrongs  himself,  but  does  not  wrong 
his  neighbor?  You  say  he  has  a right  to 
do  what  he  pleases,  provided  he  does  not 
wrong  his  neighbor? 

The  Witness:  He  must  not  wrong  him- 
self. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  Suppose  he 

violates  the  law  of  God? 

The  Witness:  He  has  no  right  to  do 
that. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  Then  you  must 
limit  your  answer? 

The  Witness:  I meant,  being  limited 
by  law,  Bishop. 

By  Commissioner  Wright; 

Q.  Can  any  man  in  any  walk  of  life,  or 


in  any  business  or  relation  of  life,  do 
just  as  he  pleases?? 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  Tou  have  your  coal  exchanges  and 
your  organizations  where  you  meet  to- 
gether, do  you  not? 

Mr.  Warren:  We  object  to  this,  if  the 
commission  please;  this  is  not  cross  ex- 
amination at  all,  nor  is  it  relevant  to 
the  inquiry  before  this  body.  We  insist 
that  it  opens  the  door  to  the  consumption 
of  a great  deal  of  time,  and  it  certain- 
ly is  not  cross  examination.  That  is 
clear. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I will  guarantee  to  fin- 
ish in  five  minutes  with  this  witness. 

Mr.  Warren:  But  X object  to  your  go- 
ing into  a question  which  is  not  cross 
examination. 

Mr.  Darrow:  He  was  asked  what  he 
thought  of  the  union,  and  whether  it 
was  desirable,  and  it  is  directed,  in  my 
opinion,  to  that  point. 

The  Acting  Chairman:  The  commis- 
sion would  like  to  have  you  drop  that 
subject,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Very  well. 

By  Mr.  Darrow : 

Q.  Suppose  you  were  a coal  miner 
working  down  in  the  ground,  as  a miner 
has  to  do,  for  a corporation  that  em- 
ployes nine  thousand  men,  and  has  only 
such  alliances  with  other  as  you  men- 
tion; do  you  think  you  would  belong  to 
a union?  A.  No,  sir;  I would  not. 

Q.  You  think  you  would  not?  A.  Not 
as  I feel  today.  Mr.  Darrow,  I think 
every  man  has  a right  to  do  as  he 
pleases,  provided  he  does  not  wrong  his 
neighbor.  That  is  the  way  I feel  about 
it.  But  my  point  it,  that  so  far  as  I am 
within  the  limit  of  law,  and  of  couise, 
sometimes,  of  custom— because  that  be- 
comes law  in  certain  cases — I want  to 
be  free  to  do  as  I please. 

Q.  Of  course,  if  a man  pleases  to  join 
the  union,  he  should  join  it?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
if  he  wishes  to  do  it,  he  has  a right  to. 

Q.  You  would  respect  his  opinion  the 
same  as  you  would  expect  him  to  re- 
spect yours?  A.  Exactly. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  How  about  the  man  who  does  not 
"please”  to  join  the  union— the  non- 
union worker?  A.  He  has  a right  not  to 
join  the  union,  and  not  to  be  interfered 
with. 

Q.  Now,  about  this  dockage  question. 
Just  for  a moment.  Mr.  May,  if  there 
were  a check  docking  boss,  the  regular 
docking  boss  being  there  and  seeing  the 
coal  come  out  of  the  car,  and  bjr  his 
judgment  and  experience  determining 
the  quantity  and  allowing  whatever  is 
less  than  five  hundred  pounds  of  mater- 
ial to  go  through  without  dockage,  as 
near  as  you  can  grasp  it,  if  there  were  a 
check  docking  boss,  would  there  not  be  a 
continual  wrangle  in  the  matter  of  judg- 
ment and  opinion,  assuming  both  were 
honorable  men,  as  to  how  much  material 
was  coming  along  down  there  that  was 
not  coal,  and  would  it  not  result  in  con- 
tinual friction,  and  would  it  not  seriously 
affect  the  producing  power  and  capacity 
of  the  breaker?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Clark:  It  is  a good 
thing  that  one  or  both  of  you  are  law- 
yers. (Laughter.) 

Commissioner  Wright:  You  say  that 
you  do  not  dock  for  less  than  five  hun- 
dred pounds.  Do  you  mean  that  if  the  e 
are  less  than  five  hundred  pounds  of  im- 
purities, you  take  no  account  of  it? 

The  Witness:  Yes. 

By  Commissioner  Watkins: 

Q.  Is  there  not  another  object  of  the 
docking  system,  in  which  the  men  are 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


interested  equally  with  the  company?  I 
will  state  it  as  I understand  it,  putting  It 
to  you  as  a question.  The  breaker  ca- 
pacity and  arrangements  are  such  that 
you  expect  coal  cleaned  in  a reason- 
able manner,  and  if  there  is  an  excess 
quantity  of  impurities  sent  out  by  any 
miner,  through  carelessness  or  through 
the  necessity  of  his  place,  your  breaker 
capacity  is  limited  and  restricted? 

A.  It  is  reduced;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  So  that  if  coal  is  not  reasonab  y 
prepared,  in  accordance  with  the  arrange- 
ment that  you  have  provided  for  pre- 
paring it,  why  the  restriction  would  come 
back  on  the  men  in  a limited  capacity? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  consequently,  it  is  to  their  in- 
terest to  get  a reasonable  proportion  of 
coal  cleaned  in  the  mine?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
that  is  true. 

By  Commissioner  Wright: 

Q.  One  or  two  other  questions,  Captain 
May.  You  may  have  testified  on  this, 
but  I do  not  recollect  it.  In  regard  to 
the  shifts  of  firemen  and  engineers  be- 
ing reduced  from  twelve  to  eight  houis; 
what  is  your  view  on  that.  A.  Well,  in 
some  places  which  I have  in  mind  1 
think  they  ought  to  be  reduced.  I will 
say  that  frankly. 

Q.  You  could  not  reduce  them  in  one 
place  without  reducing  them  in  all?  A. 
That  is  the  difficulty. 

Q.  There  is  another  matter  about 
which  I wish  to  ask  a question.  There 
has  been  a great  deal  this  morning  and 
yesterday  about  the  necessary  earnings 
in  order  to  maintain  what  we  call  the 
American  standard  of  living.  Have  you 
considered  the  question  of  the  minimum 
wage  in  the  mining  industry?  A.  I have 
not. 

Q.  Would  you  consider  $600  a year  ade- 
quate for  the  maintenance  of  that 
standard?  A.  Oh,  I think  so. 

Q.  Is  that  any  too  small  an  amount?  A. 

1 do  not  believe  it  is  too  small. 

Q.  You  would  be  glad  to  see  all  yopr 
men  earn  $600?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  When  you  are  speaking  of  the  de 
sirability  from  your  point  of  view  of  la- 
bor organizations  as  you  frankly  said, 
is  it  not  your  idea  that  it  should  be  the 
labor  of  the  anthracite  mine  workers  in 
the  employ  of  the  companies  your  repre- 
sent? A.  Yes. 

Q.  Without  any  interference,  or  the  par- 
ticipation if  you  call  it  non-interference, 
of  outsiders  and  outside  influences?  A. 
That  is  the  idea. 

The  average  waste  in  the  breaker, 
the  witness  further  went  on  to  say  is 
twenty-one  per  cent.  Pea  and  other 
small  marketable  sizes  are  not  included 
in  figuring  waste.  Coal  for  steam  pur- 
poses amout  the  mine  is  included,  no 
consideration  is  taken  of  washery  pro- 
duct. 

Of  the  breaker  product  loaded  for 
market  the  proportion  is  as  follows: 
Prepared  sizes,  54  per  cent.;  pea,  1G 
per  cent.;  buckwheat,  12  per  cent.; 
smaller  sizes,  18  per  cent. 

Regarding  “miners’  weight”  there 
was  lengthy  discusion;  Mr.  May  ex- 
plained that  the  unit  and  price  are 
mutually  agreed  upon.  In  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Coal  company’s  places  it  is  uni- 
formly 27  cwt.  and  the  rate  for  min- 
ing varies  according  to  the  veins,  from 
61  to  68  cents.  The  highest  unit  is  29 
cwt.,  or  3248  pounds.  For  this  the  price 
is  74  cents.  The  agreement  between  the 


143 

men  and  the  company  regarding  this 
last  unit  and  price  was  made  in  1892. 

The  agreement,  the  witness  explained 
contemplated  that  the  company  should 
get  a ton  of  prepared  sizes,  out  of  the 
unit  or  “miners’  weight.”  The  witness 
admitted  that  with  the  minimum  of 
waste  at  11  per  cent.,  as  in  the  case  of 
one  colliery  at  Forest  City,  where  the 
unit  is  29  cwt.,  the  company  would 
market  nearly  3000  pounds  of  coal  out 
of  each  “miners'  weight.” 

“It  doesn’t  make  any  difference,” 
said  the  witness,  "what  we  do  with  the 
coal.  They  agreed  to  give  us  29  cwt. 
of  material  that  would  produce  a ton  of 
prepared  sizes  and  we  agreed  to  give 
them  74  cents  for  it.  The  employes 
fully  understood  that  we  sell  unprepar- 
ed sizes  and  fully  understood  we  would 
when  the  agreement  was  made.” 

Speaking  of  President  Mitchell’s 
propposition  to  reduce  the  price  per 
unit  proportionate  to  the  reduction  of 
the  unit,  would  be  of  no  advantage 
to  the  men,  Mr.  May  declared.  There 
is  no  difference  between  74  cents  for 
3,248  and  a proportion  price  for  2,240 
pounds,  he  explained. 

Dealing  with  the  self-limitation  of 
capacity  of  miners,  Mr.  May,  asserted 
that  his  companies  do  not  restrict  the 
number  of  cars  a miner  can  get.  The 
breaker  often  has  to  shut  down  be- 
cause the  miners  do  not  cut  enough 
coal.  Sometimes,  he  admitted,  there 
are  shut-downs  because  of  scarcity  of 
cars. 

Mr.  May  was  asked  to  give  a single 
instance  of  a miner  coming  out  early 
when  it  was  not  that  he  had  to  come 
out  by  reason  of  accident,  lack  of  cars 
or  something  over  which  he  has  no 
control.  The  witness  took  out  a note 
book  and  gave  two  instances,  with 
names,  dates  and  hours  even  to  the 
minute. 

Mr.  Darrow  adduced  the  admission 
that  for  twenty  years,  it  was  quite 
generally  understood  that  twelve  cars 
constituted  a day’s  shift  for  a four- 
handed  chamber. 

Alexander  Bryden,  consulting  en- 
gineer of  the  Pennsylvania  and  Hillside 
companies,  detailed  the  improvements 
made  in  mining  in  the  last  twenty 
years. 

Among  these  were  mentioned  the  fol- 
lowing: 1.  Improved  ventilation,  ex- 

haust fans  instead  of  furnace  and  nat- 
ural. 2.  Improved  drainage.  3.  Im- 
proved haulage.  4.  Improved  drilling 
machines.  5.  Improved  method  of  put- 
ting up  powder  in  cartridges.  6.  Use  of 
dynamite  in  rock  work.  7.  Use  of  safety 
fuse  in  rock  work.  8.  Use  of  battery  in 
shaft  and  tunnel  work.  9.  Use  of  steel 
in  place  of  wood  rail.  10.  Use  of  elec- 
tric lights  about  foot,  stables,  pumps 
and  engine  houses.  11.  Furnishing  props 
to  miners  at  face.  12.  Establishment  of 
rooms  and  appliances  to  render  first  aid 
to  injured.  13.  Fresh  water  taken  to  in- 
side stables  through  pipes  from  sur- 
face. 14.  Wash-houses,  heated,  lighted 
and  water  introduced  in  same.  15. 
Steam  heat  in  breakers,  shops,  etc.  16. 


144 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Coal  conveyors  to  boiler  rooms.  17.  Ash 
conveyors  from  boiler  rooms.  18.  Am- 
bulances for  the  injured.  19.  Company 
blacksmith  shops,  tools  sharpened  at 
one-half  cent  per  ton  of  coal. 

He  also  testified  that  miners  live  as 
long  as  other  men  who  work  hard,  and 
that  as  a rule  they  are  healthy.  As  a 
result  of  the  improved  conditions  in 
mining,  particularly  in  ventilation,  there 
is  very  little  asthma  nowadays  among 
the  miners.  The  witness  knows  men 
who  were  miners  forty  years  ago,  when 
he  was  a boy,  and  who  are  still  work- 
ing in  the  mines. 

The  anxiety  of  miners  to  get  out  of 
the  mines  early  in  the  day,  the  witness 
said,  is  responsible  for  a great  many  of 
the  accidents.  “They  should  stay  in 
and  protect  their  laborers,”  he  added. 

President  Mitchell  remarked  that  the 
reports  would  show  that  more  miners 
than  laborers  are  victims  of  accident. 

Mr.  Bryden  gave  a sample  calculation 
of  what  a miner  can  make  if  he  takes 
advantage  of  his  opportunities: 


Six  cars  of  1%  tons  at  G6c $5  94 

Coal  yardage,  2-3  of  a yard 33 

Rock  yardage  2-3  of  a yard  50 

Total  $6  77 

Powder,  1-3  of  a keg  50 

Joint  earnings  $6  27 

Laborer  2 52 


$3  75 

From  this  $3.75  might  be  subtracted 
25  cents,  the  witness  said,  for  oil,  cot- 
ton, sharpening  of  tools,  etc.  This 
would  leave  the  miner  earning  $3.50  for 
six  cars. 

Samuel  J.  Jennings,  general  foreman 
of  the  Hillside  company  at  Forest  City, 
told  that  he  was  a laborer  in  the  mines 
in  1888.  He  knew  of  no  asthma  among 
miners.  The  miners  at  the  Clifford  re- 
fused to  take  down  a foot  of  top  coal, 
alleging  it  would  not  pay.  They  agreed 


finally  to  make  a test.  The  work  net- 
ted $4.56  a day  for  one  of  the  men  work- 
ing on  the  test.  The  witness  then  gave 
some  instances  of  impairment  of  dis- 
cipline after  the  1900  strike. 

One  of  the  incidents  was  that  of  a 
boy  knocking  out  the  eye  of  a mule 
with  a sprag.  Mr.  Darrow  wanted  to 
have  the  testimony  stricken  out  because 
it  had  no  bearing  on  the  case,  it  not 
being  fair  to  charge  the  union  with  the 
loss  of  the  mule’s  eye. 

General  Wilson  said:  “We  will  allow 

the  testimony  to  stand.  If  we  ex- 
punged from  the  record  all  the  testi- 
mony not  having  a bearing  on  the  case, 
the  6,000  pages  would  be  reduced  to 
3,000.” 

John  F.  Gallagher,  foreman  of  the 
three  Mayfield  collieries  of  the  Hillside 
company,  told  that  his  steam  men  in- 
formed him  that  they  would  not  go  out 
on  strike  and  that  without  as  much  as 
a day’s  notice,  went  out  in  a body. 

He  also  told  that  in  1901  he  made  a 
six  months’  experiment  of  getting  along 
without  a docking  boss.  Th  e men 
wanted  it  and  agreed  that  if  any  one 
of  them  sent  up  300  pounds  of  impuri- 
ties a second  time  he  should  be  dis- 
charged. Coal  came  clean  for  a month, 
then  it  began  to  get  dirty,  and  when 
it  continued  this  way  for  four  more 
months,  despite  threats  of  imposing  the 
penalty,  he  had  to  go  back  to  the  old 
plan  of  docking. 

The  first  miner  called  by  Major  War- 
ren was  a namesake  of  President  Mitch- 
ell. He  was  Patrick  Mitchell,  of  Pitts- 
ton,  an  ex-union  man,  who  quit  the  or- 
ganization rather  than  pay  what  he 
considered  an  unjust  fine  of  $5  imposed 
on  him  for  working  one  night,  on  his 
regular  shift,  when  the  breaker  had  not 
worked  during  the  day  preceding. 

He  also  told  that  the  drivers  would 
not  give  him  more  than  six  cars,  al- 
though he  could  easily  load  a greater 


number.  When  he  reported  it  to  the 
superintendent,  the  latter  said  he  could 
do  nothing  about  it,  for  if  he  discharged 
the  driver  there  would  be  a strike. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  him  if  the  purpose 
of  the  union  in  limiting  the  number  of 
cars  he  should  receive  was  not  to  regu- 
late the  distribution  of  cars  equitably. 
The  witness  said  he  knew  men  who 
wouldn’t  fill  all  the  cars  allotted  to 
them,  while  he  could  not  get  what  cars 
he  wanted  to  fill. 

George  Maxey,  a member  of  the  For- 
est City  local  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  who  is  46  years  of  age  and 
has  been  a miner  for  fifteen  years,  gave 
further  evidence  of  the  union  restrict- 
ing a miner’s  capacity  for  earning. 

The  president  of  the  local  once  com- 
plained to  him  that  he  was  sending  out 
more  than  his  share  of  cars. 

Before  the  advent  of  the  union  he  was 
wont  to  send  out  eight  or  nine  cars  a 
day.  Lately  he  has  been  restricted  to 
six. 

President  Mitchell  cross-examined  the 
witness.  He  tried  to  show  that  the  wit- 
ness worked  in  a heading  and  that  the 
restriction  was  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting the  chamber  men  from  being 
discriminated  against.  The  witness  ad- 
mitted that  he  is  now  doing  heading 
work,  but  told  that  the  limitations  tes- 
tified to  were  put  on  him  when  he  was 
in  a chamber. 

“Would  it  not  be  an  injury  to  your 
neighbor,  to  let  you  have  more  cars 
than  he?”  asked  Mr.  Mitchell. 

“No,  not  if  he  couldn’t  load  as  many 
as  I can.”  the  witness  replied. 

“Do  the  men  not  load  as  much  coal 
as  the  company  will  take  from  them?" 
Mr.  Mitchell  asked.  "Do  they  not  load 
all  the  cars  they  get?” 

“Sometimes  they  do  and  sometimes 
they  don’t,”  said  the  witness. 

The  arrival  of  the  adjourning  hour  in- 
terrupted the  examination. 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Jan.  15. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  If  > ] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  15. — The  day  be- 
fore the  mine  strike  commissioners 
was  consumed  by  the  Erie  companies 
in  giving  evidence  to  sustain  the 
chaige  against  the  union  that  it  at- 
tempts to  regulate  production  by  re- 
stricting individual  industry.  Most  of 
the  testimony  was  given  by  superin- 
tendent and  foreman.  Each  had  a 
story  to  tell  of  the  union  preventing  its 
members  from  doing  more  than  a cer- 
tain amount  of  work  agreed  upon  by 
the  locals,  and  two  of  them  related 
incidents  of  this  policy  being  carried  so 
far  as  to  penalize  the  men  who  disre- 
garded it. 

A union  miner,  William  Zorn,  who 
c.-ime  before  the  commisssion  to  com- 
plain of  the  union  compelling  him  to 
give  up  a contract  for  robbing  pillars, 
was  examined  at  length  by  President 
Mitchell,  and  the  latter,  in  turn,  was 


examined  by  Commissioner  Watkins. 
The  result  was  that  the  commission 
Earned  that  a union  convention  had 
declared  for  restriction,  unequivocal- 
ly and  unreservedly,  and  that  President 
Mitchell  approved  of  the  declaration. 

Mr.  Mitchell  entered  into  a defense 
of  rhis  policy  and  showed  conclusively 
that  from  the  miners’  standpoint  it  is 
a very  inviting  policy  to  pursue,  if  the 
principal  of  the  thing  can  be  put  in 
the  background. 

Chief  Auditor  Blauvelt  and  General 
Land  Agent  Beyea,  of  the  Erie,  laid 
before  the  commission  a big  raft  of 
statistics  covering  a multitude  of  mat- 
ters pertinent  to  the  inquiry.  The 
thoroughness  of  their  work  was  pro- 
vocative of  much  commendation. 

Chairman  Gray  Present. 

Chairman  Gray  made  his  appearance 
again  when  the  session  opened  this 


morning.  He  did  not  stay  throughout 
the  whole  session. 

On  behalf  of  the  parties  before  the 
commission  Major  Warren  congratu- 
lated him  on  his  recovery  and  ex- 
pressed gratification  upon  his  being 
back  with  the  commissioners  again. 

Contrary  to  expectations,  none  of  the 
coal  presidents  has  as  yet  even  as 
much  as  looked  in  at  the  commission. 
President  Baer,  of  the  Reading,  passes 
the  federal  building  four  times  a day 
on  his  way  to  and  from  his  office,  b it 
he  succeeds  in  religiously  resisting  the 
temptation  to  “Have  a look." 

ERIE  WITNESSES  HEARD. 

Evidence  Showing  an  Effort  to  Re- 
strict Coal  Output. 

Major  Warren  opened  the  day’s  pro- 
ceedings by  presenting  extracts  from 
state  reports  to  show  the  amount  of 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


145 


taxes  paid  by  corporations  and  that  the 
schools  in  the  mining  towns  are  prac- 
tically supported  by  the  appropriations 
made  to  them  by  the  state  from  these 
taxes. 

Victor  L.  Peterson,  general  superin- 
tendent for  the  Hillside  company,  who 
was  president  of  the  First  National 
bank  of  Forest  City  for  a number  of 
years,  prefaced  his  testimony  by  telling 
that  less  than  twenty  years  ago  he  was 
a laborer  in  the  mine.  Then  he  offered 
a statement  showing  the  aggregate  in- 
dividual deposits,  with  a view  of  having 
the  commission  infer  that  because  nine- 
tenths  of  the  people  of  tlje  borough  are 
dependent  on  the  Hillside  collieries,  a 
goodly  proportion  of  these  deposits  are 
the  surplus  earnings  of  the  Hillside  em- 
ployes. 

Mr.  Darrow  objected  to  the  paper  be- 
cause it  failed  to  set  forth  definitely 
that  the  depositors  were  not  all  bosses, 
storekeepers,  and  the  like.  Judge  Gray 
thought  the  objection  was  well  taken. 
Mr.  Darrow,  for  the  miners,  waived  all 
objection  to  their  deposits  being  made 
known,  whereupon  Major  Warren  said 
the  details  of  the  deposits  would  be  pre- 
sented later.  Judge  Gray  said  the  com- 
mission would  very  much  like  to  have 
the  information. 

The  witness  only  knew  of  two  men 
who  were  suffering  from  asthma.  On 
the  whole,  the  miners  are  a very 
healthy  lot,  he  averred. 

Spirit  of  Insubordination. 

Since  1900,  he  declared,  there  has  been 
a general  spirit  of  insubordination 
among  the  employes,  especially  the 
younger  element. 

To  instance  restriction  of  output  by 
the  union,  the  witness  told  of  a man, 
Richard  Holland,  who  loaded  ten  cars 
prior  to  1900,  and  who  now  can  not  be 
induced  to  load  more  than  six. 

“What  reason  do  they  give  for  not 
loading  more  cars?”  asked  Judge  Gray. 

“They  simply  say,  ‘that’s  enough.’  ” 

“Can  they  load  more?”  the  chairman 
asked. 

“They  have  loaded  more,”  the  witness 
replied. 

The  witness  then  went  on  to  describe 
violence  in  Forest  City  during  the 
strike,  and  told  of  an  instance  of  nine 
breaker  boys  going  on  strike  because 
the  boss  discharged  a boy  who  would 
not  leave  a chestnut  chute  and  pick 
slate  in  the  egg  chute. 

On  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Darrow 
as  to  insubordination,  the  witness  ad- 
mitted that  he  could  give  only  one  in- 
stance of  it  which  came  under  his  own 
immediate  notice.  This  emboldened  Mr. 
Darrow  to  ask  the  witness  if  he  could 
give  a single  instance  that  had  been  re- 
ported to  him. 

“Yes,  sir,”  said  the  witness,  diving 
down  into  his  satchel  and  bringing 
forth  a large  bundle  of  memoranda. 

“Here,  major,”  said  Mr.  Darrow, 
turning  to  the  counsel  for  the  Erie  com- 
panies, “have  you  put  up  a job  on  me?” 

“Well,  you  opened  the  door  for  a lot 
of  matter  we  want  to  get  in  by  this 
witness,  I’ll  have  to  admit,”  said  the 


major  with  much  evident  gratification. 

The  witness,  being  thus  made  free  to, 
give  hearsay  testimony,  told,  with  the 
aid  of  his  memoranda,  of  various  cases 
of  insubordination  reported  to  him  by 
his  subordinate  officials. 

Murder  Threatened. 

After  the  witness  had  related  a few 
of  them,  Mr.  Darrow  halted  him  by 
asking  for  the  most  grievous  case.  The 
witness  told  of  a miner  named  William 
Slick,  at  Forest  City,  threatening  to 
take  the  life  of  Superintendent  James 
White,  because  the  latter  ordered  him 
to  take  down  some  rock. 

Mr.  Darrow  tried  to  show  that  the 
union  investigated  the  case  and  sus- 
tained the  action  of  the  superintendent 
in  discharging  the  man.  The  witness 
knew  nothing  of  the  union,  he  said. 

“Don’t  you  know  there  is  a union?” 
asked  Mr!  Darrow. 

“I  have  no  official  knowledge  of  its 
existence.” 

“Have  you  any  knowledge  of  its  ex- 
istence?” 

“My  orders  are  not  to  know  the 
union.” 

Regarding  alleged  restriction,  Mr. 
Darrow  asked  if  it  was  not  true  that 
the  limitations  placed  by  the  union  on 
the  number  of  cars  a miner  sends  out 
is  solely  for  the  purpose  of  providing 
an  equitable  distribution  of  cars. 

The  witness  replied  that  his  informa- 
tion was  to  the  effect  that  the  limita- 
tion is  made  because,  generally  speak- 
ing, the  miner  does  not  want  to  do  a 
full  day’s  work. 

“Who  told  you  this?”  demanded  Mr. 
Darrow. 

“Robert  Button,  foreman,  who  was 
formerly  a member  of  the  union,” 
promptly  replied  the  witness. 

In  the  course  of  his  testimony,  the 
witness  made  mention  of  the  name  of 
Superintendent  Maxey.  President  Mit- 
chell cocked  his  ear,  thought  for  a 
moment,  and  then  spoke  to  Mr.  Dar- 
row. The  latter  asked  the  witness:  “Is 
this  Superintendent  Maxey  a brother 
of  the  United  Mine  Worker  George 
Maxey,  who  testified  yesterday?”  The 
witness  admitted  he  was.  President 
Mitchell’s  face  was  wreathed  in  smiles. 

President  Mitchell  asked  the  witness 
if  his  collieries  were  at  present  work- 
ing every  day.  The  witness  said  they 
were  working  all  they  can,  but  ad- 
mitted that  there  has  been  idleness 
on  account  of  breaks  and  the  failure 
to  get  railroad  cars. 

“Are  the  men  mining  all  the  coal  the 
company  will  take?”  asked  Mr.  Mit- 
chell. 

“I  do  not  know  as  to  that,  Mr.  Mit- 
chell; I really  could  not  say?” 

“Let’s  see  if  you  can’t,”  interrupted 
Major  Warren.  “Don’t  your  men  Stay 
away  on  the  day  following  pay  day?” 

“Yes,  there  is  a shortage  always  on 
the  day  after  pay  day,”  the  witness 
replied. 

“I  thought  so,”  remarked  Major 
Warren.  “Is  it  not  also  true  that  the 
men  come  out  as  early  as  noon  and 


that  the  breaker  could  take  more  coal 
than  it  gets?” 

“Yes,”  said  the  witness.  “That's 
true.” 

Lists  of  names  of  the  men  who 
worked  at  the  Forest  City  collieries 
during  the  strike,  written  on  sheets  of 
paper,  bearing  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America  letter  head,  were  ia’d 
before  the  commission.  The  lists  were 
gotten  from  a Forest  City  storekeepr. 

The  witness  concluded  by  identifying 
photos  of  miners’  dwellings  in  Forest 
City,  and  the  public  school  at  that 
town. 

McMillan’s  Explanation. 

District  Superintendent  Henry  Mc- 
Millan, of  West  Pittston,  who  was 
charged  by  one  of  the  miners'  wit- 
nesses, John  Allen,  with  having  struck 
him  with  a whip,  explained  that  the 
thing  was  just  a bit  of  pleasantry,  and 
that  he  and  the  man  he  struck  were 
the  best  of  friends.  He  was  driving 
along  the  street  one  day  and  Allen  was 
at  a cross-walk,  waiting  for  him  to 
pass.  As  he  was  going  by,  they  ex- 
changed greetings,  and  the  witness 
playfully  hit  him  over  the  legs  with 
his  whip.  He  never  knew  that  Allen 
regarded  it  otherwise  than  a bit  of 
familiarity  until  he  read  Allen’s  testi- 
mony. Mr.  Darrow  payed  the  witness 
the  compliment  of  saying  he  believed 
his  version  of  the  story.  Allen’s  story 
was  calculated  to  give  the  commission 
the  impression  that  mine  bosses  treat 
their  men  as  if  they  were  slaves. 

Mr.  McMillan,  who  is  an  unusually 
robust  looking  specimen  of  manhood, 
was  offered  by  Major  Warren  as  an 
“exhibit”  to  contradict  the  claim  that 
mining  is  unhealthy.  He  is  42  years 
of  age  and  has  worked  in  and  about 
the  mines  since  he  was  a boy  of  9. 
Mr.  Darrow  qualified  this  by  securing 
an  admission  that  a good  part  of  his 
years  he  was  a boss. 

Anent  restriction,  the  witness  told 
that,  in  1901,  one  of  the  shafts  at  the 
Barnum  colliery  was  thrown  idle.  He 
asked  the  men  at  the  other  shaft  to 
load  a little  extra  coal  to  help  out  the 
company.  They  refused  to  do  so,  say- 
ing they  had  an  agreement  to  send  out 
not  more  than  “eight  hours”  coal.  The 
witness  explained  that  this  means  coal 
enough  to  supply  the  breaker  for  eight 
hours. 

Contract  miners  in  his  district,  he 
said  work  from  three  to  five  hours 
where  they  employ  laborers,  and  from 
nine  to  ten  hours  where  they  work 
single-handed. 

Recounting  some  of  his  strike  experi- 
ences he  told  that  at  Hughestown  a 
particularly  vigorous  effort  was  made 
by  the  strikers  to  shut  down  the  big 
No.  10  colliery.  General  Manager  May 
made  a proposition  to  the  burgess  to 
pay  the  salary  of  six  men  to  be  se- 
lected from  the  citizens  to  guard  the 
company’s  property.  The  burgess  said 
he  would  see  the  councilmen  about  it. 
Nothing  more  was  heard  from  the  bur- 
gess. 


146 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


“He  must  have  seen  the  councilmen,” 
remarked  Major  Warren. 

Chief  Jake  Smaltz. 

The  witness  also  told  of  the  workmen 
at  No.  10  being-  stoned  on  their  way  to 
and  from  work,  and  that,  on  one  occa- 
sion, they  were  violently  assaulted  by 
a large  mob,  headed  by  the  borough 
chief  of  police,  Jake  Smaltz.  The  bur- 
gess, the  witness  further  declared,  was 
one  of  the  onlookers,  and  did  nothing 
to  discourage  the  assault. 

Theodore  Hogan,  a Pennsylvania 
Coal  company  foreman,  at  Avoca,  gave 
his  age  as  34,  and  told  that  he  worked 
in  the  mines  in  various  positions  from 
driver-boy  up,  for  twenty-three  years. 
He  was  another  very  good  “exhibit”  of 
the  heaithfulness  of  the  occupation  of 
mining.  He  knows  all  of  the  300  men 
employed  at  his  colliery  and  can  say 
that  only  two  of  them  are  affected 
with  asthma. 

The  witness  recounted  a conversa- 
tion he  had  in  1901  with  John  Demp- 
sey, president  of  the  local  of  the  Uni- 
ted Mine  Workers,  to  prove  the  charge 
that  the  union  restricts  the  output  of 
the  mines. 

Before  the  1900  strike,  the  miners  had 
been  sending  out  three  cars,  working 
single-handed,  and  five  cars  working 
double.  Soon  after  the  close  of  the 
strike  the  men  began  to  diminish  their 
output.  He  threatened  to  take  steps 
of  a disciplinary  kind  to  compel  them 
to  send  out  the  usual  quota,  and  Presi- 
dent Dempsey  protested  that  if  he  did 
there  would  be  trouble. 

The  local.  President  Dempsey  stat- 
ed, had  decided  by  resolution  that  one 
man  should  not  send  out  more  than 
two  cars,  and  two  men  not  more  than 
four  cars. 

The  witness  told  President  Dempsey 
he  did  not  propose  to  have  the  output 
of  the  mine  cut  in  half  and  that  if 
the  men  persisted  in  observing  the  re- 
solution, he  would  have  to  hire  more 
miners.  He  also  argued  with  Presi- 
dent Dempsey  that  the  restriction  wa3 
more  than  counteracting  the  ten  per 
cent,  raise,  and  that  the  men  were  do- 
ing a very  unwise  thing.  The  union 
would  not  rescind  the  resolution,  and 
the  company  put  in  fifty  extra  miners. 
This  condition  continues  to  the  present. 

Knew  of  No  Asthma. 

John  P.  Clark,  foreman  at  No.  3 
shaft,  in  I-Iughestown,  knew  of  no 
asthma  among  his  230  men,  and  gave 
the  names  of  about  a dozen  of  his 
miners  who  are  over  55  years  of  age. 
He  employed  two  men  to  keep  tabs  on 
the  time  worked  by  contract  miners, 
and  found  that  they  do  not  average 
three  and  one-half  hours  a day. 

Seward  Button,  foreman  at  the  Con- 
solidated colliery,  of  the  Hillside  com- 
pany, has  been  a mine  worker  for  six- 
teen years,  and  up  to  fifteen  months 
ago,  when  he  was  promoted  from 
miner  to  mine  foreman,  he  belonged  to 
the  union. 

After  the  1900  strike  his  local  dis- 


cussed a resolution  providing  that  the 
, daily  shift  should  be  cut  from  six  to 
five  cars.  The  resolution  was  defeated, 
after  a protracted  fight. 

A miner  could  load  eight  or  nine 
cars,  the  witness  averred,  if  he  would 
work  a reasonable  number  of  hours. 
The  usual  day  of  a contract  miner,  he 
said,  is  from  four  to  six  hours. 

In  answer  to  a question  by  Commis- 
sioner Clark,  the  witness  said  the  rule 
among  miners  at  the  collieries  where 
he  worked  as  a miner  and  laborer,  was 
that  six  cars  should  constitute  a day’s 
shift.  This  extended,  at  least  as  far 
back  as  1895,  the  witness  acknowl- 
edged. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  if  he 
ever  heard  the  company  complain 
against  this  rule,  when  he  was  a miner. 
The  witness  answered  that  he  had  not. 

Afternoon  Session. 

William  Robertson,  foreman  at  No.  5 
colliery  of  the  Pennsylvania  company 
ac  Dunmore,  knew  of  only  two  cases 
of  asthma  among  miners  in  all  his  ex- 
perience. One  of  his  miners,  Patrick 
Gill,  is  60  years  of  age.  His  father, 
the  witness  said,  worked  in  the  mines 
for  fifty  years. 

He  told  of  the  union  cutting  down 
the  number  of  cars  to  be  sent  out,  and 
of  driver  boys  enforcing  the  unions’ 
doctrine.  Discipline  has  been  greatly 
impaired,  he  averred,  by  the  advent  of 
the  union.  Men  refuse  to  do  work  they 
are  directed  to  do.  Once  he  discharged 
a boy  for  recklessly  running  a car 
through  a door,  and  the  other  boys 
struck. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  if  he  ever  knew 
of  a door  being  broken  before  the 
advent  of  the  union.  The  witness  said 
he  knew  of  them  being  broken  acci- 
dentally, but  not  in  the  reckless  man- 
ner in  which  this  door  was  broken. 

The  witness  would  not  admit  any 
knowledge  of  the  unequal  distribution 
of  cars  being  the  cause  of  more  feuds 
than  anything  else  about  the  mines, 
from  the  earliest  days  of  mining.  He 
had  heard  of  this  causing  trouble,  but 
never  saw  any  instances  of  it. 

Could  Not  Get  His  Job. 

When  the  miners’  side  was  being 
heard  in  Scranton,  Chief  of  Police  Wil- 
liam Major,  was  one  of  the  men  who 
was  produced  to  show  that  he  could 
not  get  his  job  back  and  that  there 
was  no  reason  why  he  should  not  be  re- 
employed,  except  that  he  was  a union 
man. 

Major  Warren,  on  cross-examination, 
asked  Chief  Major  if  it  was  not  a fact 
that  he  had  made  threats  against  a 
foreman  at  Moosic  during  the  strike. 
The  witness  indignantly  asked  the  at- 
torney if  he  thought  the  chief  of  police 
of  Moosic  borough  was  going  about 
threatening  the  people  he  was  sup- 
posed to  protect. 

Today  Major  Warren  called  to  the 
stand  Foreman  Thomas  G.  Brown,  of 
Moosic,  who  is  the  man  Chief  Major 


is  alleged  to  have  threatened.  Fore- 
man Brown  swore  that  Major  halted 
him  one  day  during  the  strike,  while 
on  his  way  to  the  Butler  colliery, 
where  he  was  acting  as  guard,  and 
said:  “Say,  Brown,  how  long  are  you 

going  to  protect  those  bums  and  slums 
down  there  at  the  Butler?” 

The  witness  assured  the  chief  they 
were  all  respectable  men. 

The  chief  replied:  “Well,  your  time 

is  near  at  hand.  You  will  all  be  stand- 
ing on  your  heads  in  hell  before  the 
month  is  out.” 

George  Ahrens,  who  overheard  ike 
conversation,  * corroborated  Foreman 
Brown. 

William  Zarn,  of  Dunmore,  a union 
miner,  told  of  having  been  compelled 
to  give  up  a contract  at  a big  loss  by 
the  local.  This  was  in  February,  19C1. 
He  took  a contract  to  rob  pillars  and 
employed  thirteen  men.  The  union 
protested  and  summoned  him  to  come 
to  a meeting  of  the  local.  He  told  the 
local  he  had  lost  money  on  the  con- 
tract and  asked  to  be  given  a little 
more  time,  that  he  might  recoup  some 
of  his  losses.  The  local  voted  to  let 
him  take  out  ten  cars  a day  for  two 
months.  Three  days  later,  the  driver 
boy  gave  him  only  six  cars,  and  when 
asked  why  he  was  not  getting  ten,  told 
that  the  president  of  the  local  in- 
structed him  to  deliver  him  only  six 
cars. 

President  Mitchell  cross-examined  Mr. 
Zarn,  and  tried  to  have  him  admit  that 
the  reason  he  did  not  get  more  than  six 
cars  was  that  the  union  held  he  was 
not  entitled  to  more  cars  than  his 
neighbor.  Mr.  Zarn  insisted  it  was  to 
break  up  contract  work.  Mr.  Mitchell 
also  emphasized  the  fact  that  it  was 
the  president  of  the  local  and  not  the 
local  that  gave  the  instructions  to  the 
driver  boy,  and  that  he  did  it  without 
authority  of  the  local. 

No  Written  Rule. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  if  there 
was  any  rule  of  the  union  forbidding 
contract  work.  Mr.  Mitchell  said  he  did 
not  know  of  any  written  rule,  but  he 
knew  the  union  looked  with  disfavor  on 
a miner  having  more  than  two  labor- 
ers, favored  one  laborer  for  a miner, 
and  preferred,  if  possible,  to  have  men 
work  as  partners.  If  a man  is  allowed 
to  have  a large  number  of  laborers,  Mr. 
Mitchell  explained,  he  becomes  a small 
operator.  He  lives  off  the  work  of  other 
mine  workers.  It  is  objectionable,  also, 
on  the  ground  that  one  miner  can  not 
properly  protect  a large  number  of 
laborers.  If  the  thing  were  not  checked, 
there  is  danger  of  the  system  extend- 
ing to  the  chambers  and  the  number  of 
miners  reduced.  He  further  pointed  out 
that  there  are  instances  of  saloonkeep- 
ers taking  pillar-robbing  contracts  and 
turning  them  over  to  practical  miners. 
This  means  that  all  the  men  working 
on  the  contract  must  go  to  the  saloon 
to  be  paid,  and,  of  course,  leave  some 
of  their  money  on  the  bar. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


147 


Commissioner  Clark  adduced  the  fact 
that  no  bond  or  capital  are  required  to 
work  one  of  these  contracts. 

Major  Warren  here  presented  a copy 
of  a resolution  adopted  at  the  Edwards- 
ville  convention  of  District  No.  1,  in 
1901,  in  which  it  is  provided  that  any 
man  taking  a contract  for  work  other 
than  driving  tunnels  or  sinking  shafts 
would  be  expelled  from  the  union,  and 
no  union  man  would  work  with  him. 

Mr.  Mitchell  admitted  that  he  now  re- 
called this  resolution.  He  pointed  out, 
however,  that  it  was  only  a district 
convention  that  adopted  it.  Major  War- 
ren asked  him  whether  or  not  he 
favored  the  resolution.  Mr.  Mitchell, 
after  some  little  hesitation,  answered 
in  the  affirmative. 

M.  P.  Blauvelt,  auditor  of  the  Erie 
coal  department,  next  went  on  the 
stand  and  explained  the  different  docu- 
ments submitted  by  his  companies. 
They  covered  the  period  included  be- 
tween April  1,  1901,  and  March  31,  1902. 
Some  of  the  items  were  as  follows: 


Hillside  Statement. 

HILLSIDE  COAL  AND  IRON  CO. 

Total  output  990,758 

Percentage  prepared  sizes  59% 

Percentage  pea  and  smaller  sizes. . . 41% 

Dockage  (average)  3.98% 

Total  number  of  miners  1,011 

Total  number  of  laborers  345 

Average  pay  of  day  men  $359.53 


Average  earnings  per  year  for  all 
miners  who  worked  part  of  prac- 
tically each  half  month  during  the 
year  (excepting  Clifford,  which 
worked  10  months  only,  and  Glen- 
wood,  which  was  flooded  and 


worked  97  days  only)  $676.42 

Average  earnings  per  year  for  all 
miners  who  worked  part  of  prac- 
tically each  half  month  during  the 

year  (excepting  Glenwood) $637.18 

Total  number  of  company  men 1,603 

Average  rate  per  day  $1.55 

Average  earnings  per  man  per  year.  $359. 53 


A recapitulation  has  also  been  submit- 
ted, classifying  the  employes  in  six 
groups,  as  follows: 


Average 

Rate 

per 

Day 

Average 
Earnings 
per  Man 
per  Year 

Engineers,  machinists,  car- 
penters, blacksmiths,  etc. . 

$2.03 

$639.50 

Firemen,  pumpmen,  stable- 
men, trackmen,  timber- 
men,  etc  

1.83 

545.54 

Dumpers,  footmen,  headr 
men,  runners,  loaders,  etc 

1.67 

338.76 

Drivers,  plate  or  gatemen, 
watchmen,  etc  

1.44 

297.07 

Door  boys,  slate  pickers 

.86 

190.93 

Laborers  and  various  other 
classes  

1.67 

382.62 

Number  of  days  on  which  breaker 


ran  833.3 

Average  hours  per  day  based  on  to- 
tal stars  6.C 

Number  of  suspensions  due  to  ac- 
tion of  employes  683 

Number  of  suspensions  due  to  ma- 
chinery   116 

Number  of  suspensions  due  to  cave- 
in  .* 1 


As  to  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  com- 
pany’s figures,  the  company  could  only 
give,  with  any  assurance  of  accuracy, 
the  earnings  of  the  contract  miner.  Be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  there  is  no  regu- 
lation or  record  of  the  number  of  labor- 
ers employed,  no  distribution  could  be 
made.  The  average  was  $991.47. 

Edward  M.  Beyea,  general  land  agent 
of  the  Erie’s  coal  companies,  presented 
a number  of  statements  containing  in- 
teresting information. 

Of  the  employes  of  the  Pennsylvania 
company,  989  or  21  8-10  own  real  estate. 
In  the  Hillside  company  the  number  is 
341  or  13  per  cent. 

The  Pennsylvania  owns  twenty-eight 
company  houses,  for  which  they  charge 
an  average  rental  of  $185  a year.  The 


Hillside  company  has  107  houses  rent- 
ing for  $5.40  a month  on  an  average. 

The  local  taxes  paid  by  the  two  com- 
panies are  as  follows:  Pennsylvania, 

$72,110.67;  Hillside,  $16,357.33;  total,  $88,- 
468. 

Both  these  witnesses  will  be  cross- 
examined  by  Mr.  Darrow  tomorrow'. 

Protest  Against  Militia. 

The  following  transcript  of  the  letter 
for  which  the  commission  made  requisi- 
tion on  Governor  Stone,  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  Mr.  Torrey,  was  presented  to- 
day. It  will  be  remembered  it  was  tes- 
tified to  by  General  Gobin. 

Edward  J.  Maginnis, 

Attorney  at  Law, 

Girardville,  Pa.,  Sept.  1,  1902. 
Mr.  William  Stone,  Governor  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

Dear  Sir:  A mass  meeting  of  the  peopk- 
of  Girardville  and  vicinity  was  held  here 
in  the  opera  house  yesterday  afternoon 
for  the  purpose  of  appealing  to  you  not 
to  alloy/  the  state  militia  to  be  used  in 
escorting  strike  breakers  to  and  from  the 
mines.  No  objection  was  made  to  the  em- 
ployment of  the  militia  in  guarding  the 
mines  and  those  at  work  in  or  about  the 
mines.  It  has  been  reported  that  you 
promised  the  Mine  Workers’  officials  that 
the  militia  would  not  be  employed  in  the 
capacity  now  complained  of.  Mr.  M.  A. 
Kilker,  of  Girardville,  and  James  Clarke, 
of  Ashland,  and  myself  were  appointed  a 
committee  by  yesterday’s  meeting  to  call 
on  you  personally  and  protest  against  the 
misuse  of  the  militia.  Kindly  let  me 
know  when  and  where  we  can  meet  you 
after  next  Thursday.  I learn  from  the 
press  that  you  will  be  away  from  Harris- 
burg until  Thursday.  If  you  can  meet  us 
at  an  early  date  after  your  return,  please 
telegraph.  Yours  truly, 

(Signed)  Edward  J.  Maginnis. 

Mr.  Torrey  brought  out  the  admis- 
sion that  Messrs.  Kilker  and  Clark 
are  United  Mine  Workers. 


Proceedings  of  FVid.a.y,  Jan.  16. 

I From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  1 7.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  16. — The  Erie  com- 
pnay  closed  its  case  before  the  strike 
commission  this  morning  and  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  Ontario  and  Western. 
Major  Warren  reserved  the  privilege  of 
presenting  some  further  statistics  and 
the  miners’  attorneys  gave  notice  that 
they  would  later  recall  Auditor  Blau- 
velt and  possibly  Land  Agent  Beyea, 
for  further  cross  examination. 

The  Ontario  and  Western  case  is  be- 
ing conducted  by  General  Counsel  John 
B.  Kerr,  of  New  York;  Former  Su- 
preme Court  Justice  Alfred  Hand,  of 
Scranton,  and  J.  E.  Burr,  Scranton 
counsel  for  the  company.  Mr.  Burr 
made  the  opening  address  and  con- 
ducted the  examinations  of  all  except 
one  witness. 

The  testimony  was  particularly  re- 
plete with  substantiation  of  the  claim 
that  the  union  seeks  to  divide  with 
the  company  the  executive  and  admin- 
istrative control  of  the  mines.  Some 


interesting  incidents  bearing  on  this 
contention  were  related  by  the  com- 
pany’s superintendents. 

The  miners’  attorneys  are  taking  vo- 
luminous notes  and  making  the  most 
exhaustive  examination  into  the  ac- 
curacy of  the  statements  of  the  opera- 
tors’ witnesses.  The  miners  can  be 
counted  upon  to  consume  fully  ten 
days  or  two  weeks  in  rebuttal. 


MORNING  SESSION. 


Dr.  W.  K.  Dolan,  of  Scranton,  Last 
Witness  for  the  Erie  Company. 

The  cross-examination  of  Auditor 
Blauvelt  was  put  over  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  Attorney  Darrow,  when  Major 
Warren  announced  that  his  company 
expects  to  be  able  within  a few  days 
to  present  a reasonably  thorough  and 
accurate  account  of  the  distribution  of 
earnings  between  miners  and  laborers 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company, 


which  has  no  record  of  how  its  cham- 
bers are  worked.  In  some  places  there 
is  a miner  and  laborer;  in  others,  a 
miner  and  two  laborers,  and  in  others 
two  miners  and  two  laborers.  The 
company  deals  with  only  one  man,  the 
one  who  has  the  contract  for  the  cham- 
ber. The  average  gross  earnings  of 
the  contract  miner  are  nearly  $1,000. 
The  company  is  corresponding  with 
these  contract  men,  with  foremen  and 
others,  to  ascertain  how  each  chamber 
is  worked.  When  this  information  is 
secured,  the  distribution  will  be  made 
and  presented. 

Dr.  W.  K.  Dolan,  of  Scranton,  was 
the  last  witness  for  the  Erie  company. 
He  gave  a report  of  a census  he  took 
of  miners  in  the  poor  houses  and  in- 
sane asylums  at  Blakely,  Clark’s  Sum- 
mit and  Retreat,  the  principal  institu- 
tions of  that  kind  in  the  upper  coal 
regions.  The  total  population  of  these 
institutions  is  1,159,  of  whom  692  are 


148 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


males  and  467  females.  Of  these  males, 
216  are  former  mine  employes.  Only  33 
cases  of  asthma  were  found  among 
these  inmates.  Twelve  cases  of  chron- 
ic rheumatism  were  found  among  the 
miner-inmates  of  Retreat  asylum,  but 
not  a single  case  at  any  other  institu- 
tion. There  are  124  of  them  sane  and 
92  insane. 

Superintendents  of  these  institutions 
told  the  witness  that  95  per  cent,  of 
the  miners  are  inmates  because  of 
drink.  Of  the  216  miners,  24  are  crip- 
pled and  3 show  the  effects  of  burns 
from  gas  explosions.  Three  consump- 
tives were  among  the  whole. 

Generally  speaking,  the  doctor  said, 
the  health  of  mine  workers  is  as  good 
as  that  of  other  workmen.  They  are 
not  peculiarly  subject  to  any  disease 
in  particular.  As  evidence  that  the 
miners  are  not  afflicted  with  pulmon- 
ary trouble  to  any  great  extent,  the 
doctor  told  of  the  singing  societies  in 
the  coal  regions,  some  of  them  com- 
posed of  400  voices,  and  practically  all 
of  them  miners  and  their  families. 
Some  of  the  best  singers  in  the  region, 
he  said,  are  men  who  have  worked  in 
the  mines  all  their  lives. 

Reading  from  Dr.  Neusholm’s  statis- 
tics, on  health,  a standard  English 
publication,  the  witness  showed  that 
of  thirty  ordinary  occupations  given, 
twenty-six  of  them  are  less  healthful 
than  mining.  Clergymen,  gardeners, 
teachers  and  agricultural  laborers  are 
the  occupations  healthier  than  mining 
according  to  the  statistics.  Corrobora- 
tion was  presented  from  statistics  in 
Oliver’s  “Dangerous  Trades.” 

Evidence  on  Good  Authority. 

Mr.  Darrow  spent  considerable  time 
trying  to  discredit  the  statement  that 
95  per  cent,  of  the  mine  workers  in  the 
insane  asylums  and  poor  hou^ps  of  the 
upper  coal  regions,  got  there  through 
drink.  The  doctor  said  the  only  reason 
he  had  to  believe  it  was  that  the  su- 
perintendents of  these  institutions  told 
him  it  as  a fact. 

Mr.  Darrow  remarked: 

"Did  it  ever  occur  to  you,  doctor, 
that  a man  who  is  looking  for  statistics 
to  prove  something,  can  generally  find 
what  he  is  looking  for?” 

Dr.  Dolan  explained  that  he  made 
the  investigations  at  the  request  of 
Major  Warren.  He  was  personally  in- 
terested in  the  matter  only  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  the  doctors  who  were 
on  the  stand  for  the  miners  gave  testi- 
mony very  different  from  his  belief. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  for  the  names  of 
the  parties  who  told  him  about  the 
drunkenness  matter.  The  witness  said 
he  would  not  give  them.  He  had 
talked  with  doctors  regarding  the  tes- 
timony given  by  the  miners’  doctors, 
and  like  himself,  they  disagreed  with 
the  testimony.  They,  however,  would 
not  want  to  go  on  the  stand  to  con- 
tradict this  testimony  as  they  feared 
the  boycott. 

“You  don't  fear  }t,  do  you,  doctor?” 


“Well,  it  won’t  increase  my  practice 
any,”  replied  the  doctor. 


ONTARIO  AND  WESTERN’S  CASE. 


The  Opening  Address  Made  by  At- 
torney Burr. 

The  opening  address  for  the  New 
York,  Ontario  and  Western  company 
was  then  made  by  Attorney  Burr.  It 
was  as  follows: 

May  it  please  the  Commission: 

The  facts  which  will  be  shown  by  the 
Scranton  Coal  company,  on  behalf  of  it- 
self and  the  Elk  Hill  Coal  and  Iron  com- 
pany, whose  properties  it  operates,  will 
relate  to  the  question  of  wages  and 
hours,  and  the  conditions  hitherto  and 
now  prevailing  at  the  several  collieries 
of  both  companies. 

The  operating  company  owns  two  col- 
lieries and  one  washery  situated  in  the 
city  of  Scranton,  Lackawanna  county. 
The  Elk  Hill  Coal  and  Iron  company 
owns  seven  collieries  and  two  washeries 
located  in  the  same  county.  The  present 
management  has  had  control  of  all  the 
mines  operated  by  it,  for  a period  of 
from  two  to  four  years,  only;  the  pur- 
chase of  the  Scranton  Coal  companies 
having  been  made  in  1899,  and  the  ac- 
quisition of  the  Elk  Hill  Coal  and  Iron 
company’s  lands,  having  been  made  from 
time  to  time,  between  February,  1899,  and 
January,  1901;  so  that  in  such  cases  only 
as  those  in  which  the  same  persons  were 
retained  in  immediate  charge  after  the 
purchase  of  any  colliery,  shall  we  be 
able  or  attempt  to  compare  the  former 
conditions  with  those  existing  after  the 
strike  of  1900,  except  in  so  far  as  wit- 
nesses called  may  have  knowledge  of 
either  special  cr  general  conditions  be- 
fore that  time. 

Some  of  the  mines  now  operated  by  the 
Scranton  Coal  company  were  opened  from 
ten  to  fifty  years  ago.  The  company 
employs  about  5.000  men  and  boys.  It 
pays  the  laborers  direct,  pursuing  a sys- 
tem always  (so  far  as  it  knows)  in  vogue 
at  its  several  collieries.  This  has  been 
always  done  at  the  request  of  the  miners, 
as  we  shall  show.  The  statements  filed 
show  that  the  company  is  paying  fair 
wages,  as  fair  as  those  paid  by  other  op- 
erators engaged  in  mining  in  the  same 
region  where  it  operates. 

We  shall  also  show  that  since  1900,  we 
have  had  repeated  petty  strikes,  con- 
tinual breaches  of  discipline,  numerous 
interferences  on  the  part  of  many  men 
and  boys  with  not  only  the  management 
and  control  of  the  collieries,  but  also  with 
the  men  employed  in  connection  there- 
with, who  are  not  members  of  the  mine 
workers’  union. 

We  shall  show  that  we  have  endeavored 
to  pacify  and  conciliate  all  persons  mak- 
ing complaints,  and  to  adjust  any  seri- 
ous difficulties,  if  any  existed,  in  so  far 
as  this  could  be  done  consistently  with 
the  proper  and  reasonable  control  of  our 
properties;  but  we  have  been  compelled 
to  take  the  stand  that  we.  not  our  em- 
ployes, must  control  them,  as  we,  not 
they,  are  responsible  for  the  proper  con- 
duct of  all  business  connected  with  the 
mining  and  preparation  of  our  coal. 

Our  mines  present  different  conditions, 
not  only  between  the  several  properties, 
and  between  the  different  veins  in  the 
same  mine,  but  also  in  the  same  vein. 
This  is  probably  true  of  all  mines  in  the 
Lackawanna  region.  For  this  reason, 
we  make  allowances  to  the  men  so  as  to 


preserve,  as  nearly  as  possible,  equal  and 
fair  rates  of  wages,  by  concessions  made 
to  suit  each  particular  condition. 

We  shall  show  further  that  we  had  to 
guard  our  own  properties  during  the  re- 
cent strike,  at  our  own  expense,  chiefly 
by  our  own  employes,  from  among  whom 
all  of  our  coal  and  iron  police  were  ap- 
pointed; that  we  suffered  severe  losses 
by  damage  to  our  collieries  by  mobs  ot 
strikers  and  strike  sympathizers,  and 
that  we  were  constantly  interfered  with 
in  our  efforts  to  preserve  our  properties. 

We  shall  show  also  that  it  would  not 
be  just  to  us  or  reasonably  practicable 
to  change  the  methods  of  payments  now 
employed  by  us.  Where  the  payment  by 
weight  obtains,  and  we  have  but  one  col- 
liery where  it  is  employed,  this  method 
was  introduced  and  the  collieries  were 
adapted  to  its  use,  gradually,  and  as  the 
properties  were  developed.  In  our  single 
colliery  employing  the  system,  it  had 
been  in  use  for  many  years  prior  to  our 
purchase  thereof. 

To  compel  us  to  change  from  payment 
by  the  car  to  payment  by  weight,  in  our 
eight  remaining  collieries,  would  entail 
not  only  great  expense,  but  serious  delays 
in  operating  our  mines,  in  order  to  provide 
the  necessary  appliances  for  effecting 
such  change;  and  we  shall  show  that  it 
would  make  no  practical  difference  with 
the  net  wages  received  by  the  miners. 
In  short,  that  it  would  be  useless,  inef- 
fectual, unfair  and  unreasonable. 

Superintendent  Allen’s  Testimony. 

The  first  witness  was  William  Al- 
len, inside  division  superintendent  of 
the  Scranton  Coal  company.  He  has 
been  mining  for  thirty  years  and  rose 
from  the  ranks.  His  testimony  was 
given  in  a very  concise,  intelligent  and 
evidently  fair  manner.  It  was,  in  sub- 
stance, an  elaboration  of  the  points 
touched  upon  in  Mr.  Burr’s  opening 
address. 

To  begin  with,  he  gave  as  an  exam- 
ple of  the  class  of  men  employed  by 
the  company  a comparison  of  the 
English-speaking  and  foreign-speak- 
ing workmen  at  the  Ontario  colliery,  in 
Peckville.  Of  the  779  employes,  508  are 
foreign-speaking  and  271  English- 
speaking.  At  the  Blue  Ridge,  he  said, 
nearly  all  the  employes  are  Italians. 

The  varying  physical  conditions  of 
the  company’s  different  mines  were  de- 
tailed, special  attention  being  given  to 
the  fact  that  at  some  of  the  collieries 
which  have  been  worked  for  years,  the 
veins  are  thin  and  hauls  extremely 
long. 

When  the  miners’  side  was  being 
heard,  William  Cheeney  and  Geo:ge 
Smith  presented  figures  on  the  size  of 
the  cars  at  the  company’s  mines.  The 
witness  declared  the  figures  were  in- 
accurate and  referred  the  commission 
to  the  company’s  statistics  for  the  real 
measurements.  He  also  denied  the  al- 
legation that  the  size  of  the  cars 
has  been  increased  in  late  years.  Some 
cars  are  smaller  than  others,  he  said, 
because  of  the  size  of  the  vei”S  but 
the  size  of  the  cars  has  not  been 
changed. 

The  men  do  not  send  out  the  re- 
quired amount  of  topping,  he  declared. 


Sometimes  the  CbmpElny  does  not  get 
even  water-level  loading. 

At  the  Raymond  colliery,  where  the 
men  are  paid  by  weight,  there  is  a 
company  weighman  and  a check-weigh- 
man,  one  paid  by  the  company  and  t..e 
other  by  the  miner.  Both  belong  to 
the  union.  He  has  seen  the  check 
weighman  half  a mile  from  his  post  of 
duty,  and,  as  a rule,  found  him  paying 
no  attention  to  his  work.  Neither  at 
this  nor  any  other  colliery  has  there 
ever  been  a complaint,  to  his  knowl- 
edge, of  the  system  of  payment, 
whether  it  be  by  the  car  or  by  weight. 

Short  Hours  of  Labor. 

From  particular  calculations,  made 
recently,  and  general  observations,  dur- 
ing his  long  experience  at  the  mines, 
he  would  say  that  the  contract  miner 
woiks  on  an  average  about  six  hours  a 
day.  He  has  met  them  coming  out 
at  9 O’clock  In  the  morning,  and  when 
he  expostulated  with  them  that  they 
ought  to  cut  more  coal,  they  either 
averred  that  they  had  cut  their  quota 
of  cars,  or  else  that  they  had  some 
business  to  attend  to  and  must  needs 
go  home.  He  often  tried  to  persuade 
miners  to  do  more  work,  but  never  suc- 
ceeded. There  is  no  limit  to  the  num- 
ber of  cars  the  men  can  have,  and  if 
the  miner  would  stay  in  and  assist  the 
laborer  in  loading  or  the  incidental 
work  of  loading,  both  of  them  could 
very  materially  Increase  their  earn- 
ings. 

Several  instances  were  given  of  the 
impairment  of  discipline  consequent 
upon  the^termination  of  the  1900  strike. 

In  February,  1901,  the  boys  asked  for 
a sleigh-ride.  The  snow  was  about 
gone  and  the  boss  told  them  to  wait 
until  the  next  snowfall  and  he  would 
give  them  a sleigh-ride,  the  company 
paying  all  expenses.  When  the  answer 
of  the  boss  was  received,  the  boys  de- 
murred, and  finally  turned  out  in  a 
body  and  threw  the  whole  mine  idlefor 
a day. 

In  Hay,  1901,  two  men,  both  Italians, 
were  the  committee  to  inspect  union 
cards  at  the  Blue  Ridge  Colliery.  One  of 
the  men  at  the  Blue  Ridge  belonged 
to  a local  connected  with  an  adjoin- 
ing colliery,  and  because  his  local  had 
not  issued  orders  to  its  members  to  dis- 
play their  union  cards,  he.  refused  to 
display  his.  The  result  was  that  all  the 
men  at  the  tunnel,  at  which  he  worked, 
were  called  out  and  they  stayed  out 
for  a week. 

When  the  company  refused  to  dis- 
charge the  man  who  would  not  show 
his  card,  a committee  from  the  tunnel 
went  to  the  shaft  and  called  out  all 
the  men  working  there.  The  witness 
met  them  as  they  were  coming  out, 
and  told  them  if  they  did  not  return  to 
work,  he  would  shut  down  the  colliery 
indefinitely.  The  shaft  men  debated  a 
while  and  went  back  to  work.  The  im- 
mediate cause  of  the  second  trouble, 
the  witness  admitted,  was  the  dis- 
charge of  the  two  men  on  the  commit- 


mine  strike  Commission 

tee  which  called  out  the  men  at  the 
tunnel.  The  tunnel  men  went  back  to 
work  without  securing  the  reinstate- 
ment of  the  committeemen  or  the  dis- 
charge of  the  man  who  would  not 
show  his  card. 

Discharge  of  a Boy  Causes  Strike. 

Shortly  after  this,  a driver  left  a 
mule  standing  in  the  road  and  ran  a 
loaded  car  down  upon  him.  The  mule 
was  badly  injured.  When  the  boy  led 
the  injured  animal  back  to  the  stable, 
the  witness  happened  to  be  there.  The 
boy,  as  if  proud  of  his  action,  said: 
“Aint  he  a ‘beaut’  now?”  The  superin- 
tendent investigated  and  concluded 
that  it  was  an  act  of  criminal  negli- 
gence. The  boy  was  discharged  and 
all  the  other  boys  quit,  throwing  the 
colliery  idle  , for  a week. 

The  general  efficiency  of  the  men  was 
impaired,  the  witness  declared,  by  a 
feeling  among  the  men  that  the  union 
was  running  the  mines.  Often  times 
the  bosses  met  with  a point-blank  re- 
fusal when  they  ordered  a man  to  do 
certain  work. 

The  following  statistics  were  given  by 
the  witness,  relating  to  the  real  estate 
owned  by  mine  workers: 


Richmond,  No.  4 — 

No.  of  employes  97 

No.  of  men  84 

No.  of  boys  under  21  13 

No.  owning  real  estate  18 

Value  of  real  estate  $21,720 

Ontario  Colliery — 

No.  of  employes  779 

No.  of  men  612 

No.  of  boys  under  21  167 

No.  owning  real  estate  90 

Value  of  real  estate  $151,850 

Raymond  Colliery- 

No.  of  employes  678 

No.  of  men  517 

No.  of  boys  under  21  167 

No.  owning  real  estate  141 

Value  of  real  estate $153,900 


Strike  Disorders. 

In  recounting  strike  disorders,  the 
witness  told  that  in  May,  a month  af- 
ter the  strike  started,  the  Blue  Ridge 
breaker  was  destroyed  by  fire.  The 
company  engaged  men  to  reconstruct 
it.  A crowd  of  strikers  marched  on 
the  colliery,  drove  off  the  men  and 
later  went  looking  for  them  at  Peck- 
ville.  The  result  was  no  men  could  be 
induced  to  work  on  the  breaker  and  it 
is  not  yet  completed. 

At  the  Raymond  colliery,  where  re- 
peated efforts  were  made  to  call  off  or 
drive  off  the  steam  men  who  took  the 
place  of  the  strikers,  the  pumps  are 
4,000  feet  from  the  foot  of  the  shaft, 
and  if  they  were  drowned,  it  might 
take  a year  to  reclaim  the  mine. 

Before  the  advent  of  the  union,  the 
witness  said,  the  miners  were  wont  to 
work  on  days  when  the  breaker  would 
happen  to  be  shut  down,  but  now  they 
cannot  be  induced  to  work  when  the 
breaker  is  not  working. 

“Not  even  during  this  coal  famine?” 
asked  Judge  Gray,  in  surprise. 

“No,  not  even  now,”  the  witness  re- 
plied. 

The  judge  arched  his  eyebrows. 


148 

Mr.  Burr  brought  out  the  fact  that 
the  company’s  employes  are  furnished 
chestnut  coal,  delivered,  for  $1.75  a ton. 
Mr.  Darrow  remarked  that  this  was  an 
interesting  bit  of  information. 

The  witness  declared  that  he  was  al- 
ways ready  to  treat  with  committees 
of  his  company’s  employes,  and  often 
has  treated  with  them.  The  commit- 
tees generally  came  to  have  some  dis- 
charged man  reinstated.  He  could  not 
recall  an  instance  of  a committee  ask- 
ing for  more  wages  or  less  hours. 

A great  many  miners  who  earn  the 
best  wages  have  young  sons  working 
in  and  about  the  mines,  the  witness 
said.  If  any  boys  under  the  legal  age 
are  employed  it  is  the  fault  of  the 
parents  who  erroneously  certify  to 
their  ages. 

Danger  of  Mining. 

The  danger  of  mining  can  be  mini- 
mized, the  witness  asserted,  by  the 
miners  being  more  careful.  Delay  in 
making  repairs — putting  it  off  until 
something  else  is  attended  to— causes 
many  accidents.  The  witness  knows  a 
great  many  men  in  the  mines  over  55 
years  of  age.  All  the  coal  and  iron 
police  hired  during  the  strike  were 
from  Lackawanna  county,  and  em- 
ployes of  the  company.  Every  man 
who  went  away  to  work  elsewhere 
during  the  strike  has  returned.  Even 
the  foreigners  who  went  over  to  the 
old  country  on  a visit  have  either  re- 
turned or  are  returning. 

When  asked  if  he  thought  the  union 
could  control  the  mine  workers,  the 
witness  said:  “If  the  union  controlled 

them  during  the  1902  strike  it  ought 
not  boast  of  it.” 

On  cross-examination,  by  Attorney 
James  L.  Lenahan,  the  witness  denied 
that  the  men  are  doing  all  they  can 
now  to  relieve  the  coal  famine.  If 
they  worked  a reasonable  number  of 
days  the  output  of  the  Ontario  and 
Raymond  collieries  alone  could  be  in- 
creased 1,000  tons  a day.  At  present 
they  average  only  two  or  three  cars. 
Some  load  more.  The  average  is  low 
because  many  miners  insist  on  doing 
their  own  loading.  Even  though  the 
company  insists  on  it,  these  miners  re- 
fuse to  hire  a laborer. 

Frank  L.  Northup,  chief  bookkeeper 
for  the  Scranton  Coal  company,  was 
examined  by  John  B.  Kerr,  general 
counsel  for  the  Ontario  and  Western. 
He  presented  the  company’s  statistics 
which  were  prepared  under  his  direc- 
tion. 

The  Tonnage  of  1901. 

The  company,  he  went  on  to  state, 
operates  nine  collieries,  seven  of  them 
owned  by  the  Elk  Hill  Coal  and  Iron 
company.  The  first  table  showed  the 
tonnage  for  the  year  ending  April  30, 
1902.  Summarily  it  was  as  follows: 

TONNAGE  AT  NINE  COLLIERIES. 

Prepared  coal  1,171,410  tons 

Pea  coal  190,904  tons 

Smaller  sizes  244,721  tons 

TotaT  1,607.037  tons 


150 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


TONNAGE  AT  TWO  WASHERIES. 

Pea  coal  9,185  tons 

Smaller  sizes  350,678  tons 

Total  359,864  tons 

OUTPUT  BY  COLLIERIES. 

Pine  Brook  239,041  tons 

Capouse  277,041  tons 

Mount  Pleasant  188,542  tons 

West  Ridge  98,544  tons 

Richmond  No.  3 53,415  tons 

Johnson  273,158  tons 

Raymond  237,876  tons 

Ontario  208,907  tons 

Richmond  No.  4 29,910  tons 


Total  1,607,037  tons 

OUTPUT  OF  WASHERIES. 

Capouse  294,115  tons 

Mount  Pleasant  65,749  tons 

Total  359,864  tons 

Tables  were  laid  before  the  commis- 
sion showing  the  earnings  of  miners 
and  laborers  at  each  colliery.  The 
earnings  of  each  were  classified  in 
groups,  according  to  the  number  of 
months  worked.  The  company  pays 
the  laborers  direct  from  the  office;  that 
is,  the  company  makes  the  distribu- 
tion, instead  of  turning  over  the  net 
earnings  of  both  to  the  miner  and  al- 
lowing him  to  pay  the  laborer. 

Earnings  of  Miners. 

The  statements  showing  the  earnings 
of  miners  divided  the  contract  men 
into  these  nine  classes: 

Class  A,  who  worked  short  periods,  all 
less  than  four  months— 786. 

Class  B,  who  worked  varying  periods, 
more  than  four  months  and  earned  less 
than  $400—758. 

Class  C,  who  worked  varying  periods, 
more  than  four  months  and  earned 
more  than  $400  but  less  than  $500 — 265. 

Class  D,  who  worked  varying  periods 
more  than  four  months  and  earned  more 
than  $500  but  less  than  $600— 2C0. 

Class  E,  who  worked  nearly  full  time, 
and  earned  more  than  $600  but  less  than 
$700-181. 

Class  F,  who  worked  full  time  and 

earned  more  than  $700  but  less  than  $800 
-78. 

Class  G,  who  worked  full  time  and 

earned  more  than  $800  but  less  than 

$900-23. 

Class  H,  who  worked  full  time  and 

earned  more  than  $900  but  less  than 

$1,000—3. 

Class  I,  who  worked  full  time  and 

earned  more  than  $1000 — 3. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Darrow 
called  attention  to  the  statement  that 
the  average  dockage  at  the  Ontario  and 
Western  collieries  is  4%  per  cent.  At 
three  of  the  places  there  are  either 
check-weighman  or  check  docking 
bosses.  At  the  Pine  Brook,  before  the 
installation  of  a “check”  man,  the 
dockage  was  3 11.100;  afterwards,  the 
average  was  1 77.100.  At  Mt.  Pleasant 
it  was  4 41.100  before,  and  2 39.100  after. 
At  the  Johnson,  it  was  6 46.100  before, 
and  3 13.100  after. 

Attorney  Kerr  brought  forth  from  the 
witness  that  there  was  not  less  dock- 
ing, proportionately,  but  less  occasion 
for  docking.  The  men  send  up  cleaner 
coal.  Both  Mr.  Kerr  and  the  witness 


agreed  that  the  check-weighman  and 
the  check  docking  boss  is  a good  thing 
for  the  company.  The  cleaner  the  coal 
the  more  economical  it  is  to  prepare. 
The  witness  admitted  that  the  com- 
pany, as  far  as  he  knows,  experiences 
no  trouble  from  clashes  between  the 
company’s  docking  boss  and  the  em- 
ployes’ docking  boss.  They  get  along 
very  well  together,  he  said,  as  far  as  he 
knew. 

James  Smith’s  Testimony. 

James  Smith,  general  inside  foreman 
at  the  Ontario  tunnel,  Klondike  drift 
and  Jermyn  No.  6 shaft  or  Rushbrook 
collieries,  was  the  next  witness. 

Michael  Coleman  and  Isaac  Cheeney, 
officers  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
came  to  him  in  1901  and  complained  that 
the  driver  boys  should  be  given  more 
hours;  that  they  couldn’t  make  fair 
wages  without  more  time.  The  super- 
intendent told  them  they  would  have  to 
agree  to  one  of  two  things,  a reduction 
of  the  force  of  drivers  one-third,  or  an 
increase  in  the  amount  of  cars  sent  out. 
The  committee  said  the  union  had 
ordered  that  no  more  cars  be  sent  out 
than  was  then  being  sent  out. 

Frank  Vanderberg,  as  a committee 
from  the  Blue  Ridge  local,  waited  upon 
the  witness  in  1902  and  insisted  on  the 
discharge  of  Howell  Taylor,  of  Scott, 
who  refused  to  join  the  union.  The 
witness  said  he  could  not  force  a man 
to  join  the  union.  The  witness  went 
away.  The  big  strike  came  on  and 
during  the  strike  the  Blue  Ridge 
breaker  was  destroyed  by  fire.  The 
matter  is  still  up  in  the  air. 

Two  or  three  days  after  the  termina- 
tion of  the  1900  strike,  one  of  the  con- 
tract miners  came  to  the  witness  and 
reported  that  his  place  had  caved  in 
and  he  could  not  work.  The  superin- 
tendent told  him  to  clean  it  up  and  he 
would  pay  him  the  regulation  $2.15  a 
day  paid  company  miners.  The  miner 
refused  to  do  the  work  for  this  figure, 
whereupon  the  superintendent  sent 
company  hands  to  do  it,  telling  the 
miner  he  might  have  the  place  when  it 
was  cleaned  up.  The  company  hands 
who  were  sent  in  to  clean  up  the  place 
returned  and  said  they  could  not  work 
in  the  chamber  because  it  was  boy- 
cotted. An  investigation  was  made  and 
it  was  found  that  the  miner  had  cut 
the  circle  and  cross  on  the  roof  with  a 
pick.  No  man  could  be  induced  to  go 
into  the  chamber.  It  was  absolutely 
necessary  that  the  chamber  be  worked. 
So  as  not  to  interfere  with  ventilation 
it  was  essential  that  the  chamber  be 
cut  through  to  the  opposite  road.  To 
effect  this  the  company  had  to  cut  into 
the  chamber  from  this  opposite  road. 

The  witness  expostulated  with  an 
Italian  miner,  one  day,  to  build  up  his 
topping  square,  instead  of  conical.  The 
miner  replied  that  he  could  not  do  it. 
“The  union  say  I do  it  this  way,”  said 
the  Italian,  indicating  with  his  hands 
that  the  topping  should  be  slanted. 

John  Gunshock,  a driver,  refused  to 
deliver  cars  to  David  Davis,  a miner, 
because  Davis  was  in  arrears  for  due* 


in  the  union.  The  same  driver  refused 
cars  to  Reuben  Morgan,  who  would  not 
join  the  union. 

When  the  Union  Forbade  Work. 

George  Knowles,  Michael  Morrow  and 
George  Smith  were  each,  in  turn,  im- 
portuned to  widen  a roadwray  to  per- 
mit of  a passing  branch  being  put  in. 
The  work  would  have  to  be  done  on 
idle  days.  They  informed  him  they 
could  not  take  the  job,  as  the  union 
forbade  work  on  idle  days.  Finally,  a 
compromise  was  effected  whereby  the 
cutting  was  done  on  idle  days,  and  the 
loading  on  working  days. 

A man  named  Taylor,  an  engineer  on 
a locomotive  used  to  shift  cars  at  the 
Ontario,  refused  to  do  some  work,  as 
directed  by  the  outside  boss.  The  lat- 
ter discharged  him  and  ran  the  engine 
himself.  Some  one  marked  the  trip  of 
empties  he  took  to  the  shaft  and  when 
they  got  to  the  foot  the  driver  boys 
would  not  handle  them.  It  was  ne’ces- 
sary  to  reinstate  Taylor  to  operate  the 
mine. 

One  of  the  witnesses  for  the  miners 
in  Scranton  was  Squire  George  Smith, 
of  Peckville.  He  complained  that  be- 
cause he  was  president  of  the  local  the 
company  refused  to  take  him  back 
when  the  strike  was  over  and  that  Su- 
perintendent Smith  said  to  him:  “You 

have  been  working  for  John  Mitchell 
lately,  and  I guess  you  had  better  keep 
on  working  for  him.” 

The  Superintendent’s  Version. 

Superintendent  Smith's  version  of  the 
affair  was  somewhat  diffeynt.  The 
squire  had  a chamber  which  the  com- 
pany seized  as  a site  for  a hoisting  en- 
gine. He  was  informed  before  the 
strike  that  the  place  was  to  be  seized. 
When  the  strike  was  over,  the  engine 
was  installed,  and  there  was  no  place 
for  the  squire.  The  superintendent 
told  him  he  would  have  the  first  place 
that  was  vacant  and  to  come  around 
soon  again.  He  never  came  around. 

While  the  sessions  of  the  commission 
were  being  conducted  in  Scranton,  the 
witness  met  the  squire  at  the  com- 
pany's store  and  had  a friendly  chat 
with  him,  during  which  the  squire  told 
him  the  reason  he  did  not  apply  again 
for  work  was  that  he  was  working  for 
Mitchell,  gwthering  statistics  for  the 
commission,  and  that  he  was  being  well 
paid  for  it.  The  witness  told  him  he 
had  better  continue  in  this  employment 
for  a while,  as  there  was  no  place  for 
him  just  then.  He  told  the  squire  that 
if  he  had  come  around  before,  as  di- 
rected, he  could  have  had  a place. 

The  witness  intimated  that  the  squire 
was  not  a very  desirable  sort  of  a 
miner,  anyhow.  He  never  sent  out 
more  than  fifty  per  cent,  of  his  quota 
of  coal,  no  matter  how  big  a rush  was 
on.  He  openly  declared  that  the  squire 
doesn’t  want  work. 

The  witness  said  that  the  miners  in 
the  collieries  over  which  he  has  charge 


MINE  strike  commission 


151 


work  on  an  average  of  seven  hours  a 
day. 

“Soft  Coal  Work  Wo  Good.” 

The  witness  named  a number  of  men 
who  have  told  him  on  returning  from 
the  soft  coal  regions,  where  they  work- 
ed during  the  strike,  that  the  men  there 
work  harder,  get  less  wages  and  live 
at  a lower  standard  than  the  men  in 
the  anthracite  region.  Foreigners  re- 
turning from  the  soft  coal  region  un- 
animously declared:  “Soft  coal  work 

no  good.” 


Last  December,  during  the  recess  of 
the  commission,  the  witness  was  a 
passenger  on  a trolley  car  bound  for 
Peckville.  John  Davy,  of  Olyphant,  a 
union  miner  was  on  the  rear  platform 
taunting  a man  who  had  worked  dur- 
ing the  strike. 

“You  are  having  your  innings  now,” 
Davy  declared,  “but  wait  till  the  com- 
mission gets  through  and  we’ll  settle 
with  you.  You  want  to  pack  your  grip 
and  get  out.” 

At  the  present  time,  the  witness  de- 


clared, the  men  in  his  collieries  could 
send  out  two  or  three  cars  more  apiece 
than  they  are  sending  out. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  if  it 
was  not  true  that  the  miners  have  been 
thrown  idle  by  the  lack  of  railroad 
cars.  The  witness  admitted  that  there 
were  three  half-days  of  idleness  on  this 
account  since  the  strike  ended. 

Mr.  Darrow  was  about  entering  upon 
cross-examination  when  the  adjourning 
hour  arrived. 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Jan.  17. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  19.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  17. — What  was  very 
generally  interpreted  to  be  a covert 
threat  of  another  strike  in  the  anthra- 
cite region  was  made  by  President 
Mitchell,  at  the  close  of  yesterday’s 
single  session  of  the  commission. 

He  was  about  to  take  his  departure 
for  the  mine  workers’  national  conven- 
tion in  Indianapolis  and  in  bidding 
adieu  to  the  commission  took  occasion 
to  express  his  satisfaction  at  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  investigation  was  be- 
ing conducted.  Incidentally,  he  re- 
ferred to  the  coal  famine  and  sought 
to  relieve  the  miners  from  all  respon- 
sibility therefor  by  alleging  that  they 
are  willing  to  increase  the  output  but 
are  prevented  from  so  doing  by  the 
failure  of  the  companies  to  furnish 
them  cars. 

Major  Warren  with  some  show  of  in- 
dignation challenged  Mr.  Mitchell’s 
statement  and  mildly  criticized  him  for 
stating  something  of  which  he  had  no 
proof  and  which  the  operators  were 
proving  was  just  the  opposite,  the  ac- 
tual facts  of  the  case. 

This  perceptibly  piqued  Mr.  Mitchell, 
and  with  his  wonted  resourcefulness 
took  another  tack.  Referring  to  the 
fact  that  there  are  3,000  miners  who 
have  been  refused  re-employment,  he 
declared  the  companies  were  not  living 
up  to  the  agreement  by  which  a cessa- 
tion of  the  strike  was  elected,  and 
then  hinted  rather  than  asserted  that 
these  3,000  men  were  liable  to  cause 
further  strife  in  tjre  coal  fields. 

Mitchell’s  Address. 

The  address  of  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Ma- 
jor Warren’s  criticism  are  given  ver- 
batim : 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gen- 
tlemen of  the  C ommission — This  will  like- 
ly be  the  last  session  or  the  investiga- 
tion that  I shall  be  able  to  attend.  The 
national  convention  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  will  meet  in  In- 
dianapolis on  next  Monday  morning.  It 
usally  continues  in  session  for  ten  days. 
At  the  expiration  of  that  time,  we  meet 
in  our  national  wage  convention  with  the 
bituminous  coal  operators,  to  fix  the  an- 
nual wage  scale  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1P04.  Unless  there  • are  import- 
ant developments  I shall  remain  in  at- 
tendance at  our  convention  until  its  ad- 
journment. 

I wish  to  take  this  occasion  to  express 


my  satisfaction,  and  that  of  the  miners, 
whom  I represent,  for  the  manner  in 
which  the  investigation  is  being  conduct- 
ed. I feel  confident  that  by  the  thor- 
oughness of  the  inquiry  it  will  result  in 
much  good.  It  would,  of  course,  not  be 
proper  for  me  to  discuss  the  matters 
that  have  been  presented  to  the  commis- 
sion at  this  time,  but  I feel  that  you  wid 
give  me  the  liberty  to  say  this  much,  at 
least. 

There  has  been  a large  part  of  the  time 
of  the  commission  taken  up  by  the  pre- 
sentation of  evidence  to  show  lawless- 
ness in  the  coal  fields,  or  that  lawlessness 
existed  to  a.  large  extent  during  the 
strike,  or  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
strike.  Personally,  I bear  no  ill-will  to 
those  who  came  here,  bear  no  personal 
malice  to  those  who  worked,  and  in  stat- 
ing what  I am  saying,  I am  trying  to 
separate  myself,  as  far  as  possible  from 
the  special  interests  I represent.  The 
non-union  man  who  was  brought  here — 
the  fellow  who  was  called  a scab — was 
brought  here  for  the  same  purpose  he 
■was  put  in  the  mines.  He  was  put  in  the 
mines  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
efforts  of  the  men  who  went  on  the 
strike.  He  was  brought  here  under  the 
pretext  of  getting  an  advance  in  wages. 
He  was  decoyed  by  a plea  made  before 
the  commission  that  an  effort  would  be 
made  by  those  who  had  this  case  in 
charge  to  secure  for  him  an  increase  of 
wages.  He  came  here  paid  by  the  com- 
panies, hotel  bills  paid  by  them,  and  our 
men,  who  went  around  to  see  them,  say 
money  was  furnished  to  them  to  enjoy 
themselves  while  they  were  here.  He 
came  here,  and  in  not  one  single  instance 
did  those  who  represent  him  attempt  to 
show  that  he  was  entitled  to  an  increase 
in  his  earnings.  The  non-union  man  was 
used— betrayed— by  those  who  proposed  to 
take  care  of  his  interests  before  the  com- 
mission. 

Would.  Condemn  Lawlessness. 

I want  to  say,  too,  as  to  the  matter 
of  lawlessness,  that  before  being  presi- 
dent of  a union,  before  being  a member 
of  a union,  I am  an  American,  over  and 
above  everything  else.  I believe  that 
every  man  should  first  be  an  American. 
There  is  no  man  connected  with  the  or- 
ganization, there  is  no  man  associated 
with  this  investigation  who  would  con- 
demn lawlessness  stronger  than  I wou’d. 
If  I did  not  do  it  because  I was  opposed 
to  lawlessness,  I would  do  it  because  it 
militates  against  the  success  of  a strike 
and  against  the  success  and  advancement 
of  the  organization.  I do  not  believe 
lawlessness  ever  won  a strike.  I do  ne  t 
believe  lawlessness,  to  a very  large  de- 


gree, deters  men  from  working.  I believe 
lawlessness,  under  all  circumstances,  will 
militate  against  the  men  who  go  on 
strike. 

As  I have  said  many  times,  I have  an 
abiding  faith  in  the  American  people.  I 
believe  that  when  they  understand  a 
cause  to  be  right  they  will  support  it, 
and  without  the  support  of  the  people,  no 
great  movement  can  succeed.  That  is 
true  of  a strike.  If  the  people  of  the 
country  are  not  in  sympathy  with  it,  it 
must  fail,  and  I am  sure  the  sympathy 
of  the  people  will  never  be  with  those 
who  violate  the  law. 

There  is  one  other  question  that  I feel 
it  is  my  duty  to  speak  of.  As  the  com- 
mission are  no  doubt  aware,  several  days 
ago  I addressed  a communication  to  all 
the  anthracite  mine  workers,  urging  them 
to  co-operate  with  the  management  of 
the  mines,  in  increasing  the  output  of  the 
mines,  for  the  purpose  of  relieving  this 
terrible  suffering  due  to  the  coal  famine. 
Since  my  communication  was  received  by 
them,  I have  heard  from  a large  num- 
ber of  our  local  unions,  and  in  enarly 
every  instance  the  miners  tell  me  that 
the  production  of  coal  cannot  be  in- 
creased through  any  effort  of  theirs;  that 
in  most  cases  the  companies  are  failing 
to  furnish  them  as  many  cars  as  they 
would  load.  In  other  words,  the  regular 
turn  of  cars  wall  not  amount  to  as  much 
as  the  men  are  accustomed  and  willing 
to  load,  so  that  they  cannot  increase  the 
output  of  the  mines.  There  may  be.  in 
some  few  cases,  they  say,  that  they 
could,  and  have  agreed  to  do  so. 

An  Interruption. 

Mr.  Warren:  Mr.  Mitchell,  will  you  par- 
don me  for  interrupting  you.  Will  you 
produce  prof  of  any  of  those  cases  you 
are  now  stating,  cases  where  they  can 
not  get  cars,  and  that  the  fault  is  with 
the  companies.  You  say  you  gathered 
your  information  from  your  men,  your 
associates  and  the  locals.  If  you  have 
such  information,  it  seems  to  me,  as  you 
are  attempting  here  to  establish  a fact— 
not  argue  your  case — you  are  apparently 
arguing  your  case,  but  you  are  not  con- 
fining yourself  to  that,  but  you  are  stat- 
ing alleged  facts,  and  we  have  informa- 
tion quite  to  the  contrary,  and  1 sug- 
gest it  would  be  fair  to  both  ourselves 
and  yourself,  if  you  would  furnish  the 
commission  with  some  fact  to  justify  the 
statement  that  the  men  are  not  able  to 
get  any  more  coal  in  these  days,  because 
of  the  lack  of  opportunity  afforded  thorn 
by  the  companies.  My  associates,  and  my 
friends  here,  and  the  general  superin- 
tendents who  are  here,  inform  me  it  is 
not  the  fact.  I am  very  sorry  you  cannot 


152 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


be  here  during  the  balance  of  the  session, 
but  we  intend  to  show  they  do  not  and 
are  not  willing  to  load  as  many  cars  as 
they  can  be  furnished  with. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  I am  not  attempting,  of 
course,  to  testify  as  a witness  in  the 
matter.  I am  giving  the  sources  of  my 
information  in  each  case.  I do  not  say 
this  for  the  purpose  of  placing  the  re- 
sponsibility on  anybody  else.  The  fact 
of  the  matter  is,  my  information  wou  d 
indicate  that  it  is  Impossible  to  move 
more  coal.  The  miners  tell  me  the  tracks 
are  congested  with  loaded  cars  of  coal  at 
the  mines. 

The  Idle  Men. 

I want  to  say  this,  in  connection  with 
it.  We  have  three  thousand  men  who  are 
on  strike — that  have  so  far  been  refused 
the  right  to  work.  They  are  ready  to 
mine  coal,  and  if  there  is  a shortage  of 
coal  in  the  country,  and  It  is  possible  to 
move  a larger  amount  of  it,  and  I don’t 
think  they  can  do  it  very  well.  I believe 
both  the  miners  and  operators  are  doing 
what  they  can  to  get  coal  out  of  the 
mines,  but  they  at  least  can  increase  it 
to  the  extent  of  putting  our  three  thous- 
and men  at  work,  whom  they  agreed  to 
start  at  work  when  they  submitted  to 
this  commission.  They  agreed  by  the 
language  of  submission.  "We  have  waited 
patiently  since  the  date  of  resumption  for 
our  men  to  be  placed  back  in  the  mines. 
We  believe  they  ought  to  be  given  work. 
We  do  not  want  to,  and  will  not,  cause 
trouble  at  the  mines,  but  will  do  all  we 
can  to  prevent  it.  But  I want  the  com- 
mission to  understand  that  the  men  who 
have  been  idle  all  this  time  are  getting 
impatient.  They  are  writing  every  day, 
asking  if  something  cannot  be  done  to 
secure  them  work  at  the  mines.  They  are 
charged,  of  course,  with  being  crimi-na's 
It  is  alleged  they  left  their  jobs,  and  a 1 
that,  but  if  they  are  going  to  have  a 
term  of  peace  for  some  years  in  the  an- 
thracite field,  it  seems  to  me  they  ought 
to  stop  fighting  now,  and  that  any  desire 
to  punish  men  by  the  companies  ought  to 
cease.  W e are  willing  and  anxious  to  get 
along  in  harmony  with  those  in  the  coal 
fields,  and  will  do  all  we  can  to  estab- 
lish good  relationship  there,  and  we  hope 
the  coal  operators  will  meet  us  half  way 
in  doing  that.  Gentlemen  of  the  commis- 
sion, I thank  you. 

No  one  ventured  a reply  to  Mr. 
Mitchell,  but  Major  Warren,  for  the 
companies  he  represented,  made  a pro- 
test to  Mr.  Mitchell,  personally,  against 
his  having  failed  to  differentiate  be- 
tween the  companies  who  are  refusing 
men  re-employment  and  those  who 
have  religiously  lived  up  to  the  terms 
of  the  submission  agreement. 

Ontario  and  Western  Case. 

The  Ontario  and  Western  companies’ 
case  was  concluded  at  11.30,  and  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
company  entered  upon  the  presentation 
of  its  case.  The  opening  address  for  the 
Lackawanna  was  made  by  John  R. 
Wilson,  local  counsel  for  the  company 
at  Scranton.  Major  Warren  and  W.  W. 
Ross,  of  New  York,  general  counsel  for 
the  company,  are  also  in  the  case. 
Major  Warren  is  to  conduct  the  ex- 
aminations. 

The  closing  testimony  on  the  part  of 
the  Ontario  and  Western  was  in  the 
main  corroborative  of  that  presented 
the  day  before. 


Superintendent  James  Smith,  of  the 
Peckville-Archbald  collieries,  was  on 
the  stand  when  the  session  began  for 
further  cross-examination  by  Attotney 
James  L.  Lenahan. 

When  asked  if  he  could  mention  a 
single  miner  who  refused  to  load  the 
usual  quota  of  cars,  the  witness  prompt- 
ly gave  the  names  of  John  Dickson,  An- 
gelo Caprino,  Robert  Sharpless,  Powell 
Bagley,  of  the  Klondike,  and  John 
Shaygut,  of  the  Ontario. 

When  asked  why  the  company  does 
not  put  on  a night  shift  to  help  relieve 
the  coal  ■ famine,  Mr.  Smith  explained 
that  in  the  first  place  there  are  not 
men  enough  available,  and,  in  the  sec- 
ond place,  the  good  miners,  as  a rule, 
object  to  cross-shifting,  as  on  one  day 
they  cut  their  coal  with  a view  of 
making  it  easy  and  cheap  to  cut  it  the 
next,  and  they  do  not  want  some  other 
man  to  reap  the  benefit  of  their  plan- 
ning. A miner  may  fire  half  a dozen 
shots,  today,  to  blow  down  six  cars, 
but  the  blasting  may  be  done  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  leave  a big  ledge  of  top 
coal  which  can  be  blown  down  with  one 
shot.  The  next  day  the  miner  fires  his 
one  shot  and  has  blown  down  his  day’s 
quota  of  coal. 

Had  Company  Stores. 

The  witness  denied  personal  knowl- 
edge of  his  company  having  any  stores, 
but  Mr.  Burr,  later,  admitted  that  the 
company  is  conducting  some  stores 
which  were  established  'when  the  prop- 
erty came  into  its  hands. 

John  Yon  Bergen,  general  inside 
superintendent  of  the  Pine  Brook,  Mt. 
Pleasant  and  Capouse  collieries,  ex- 
plained that  it  was  impracticable  to 
adopt  the  weight  system  of  payment, 
because  the  breakers  do  not  permit  of 
the  installation  of  a weighing  plant, 
and  in  the  case  of  the  Mt.  Pleasant  and 
Pine  Brook,  the  breaker  sites  are  so 
hemmed  in  by  streets  and  railroads  that 
they  will  not  accommodate  separate 
plants  for  weighing  coal. 

President  Mitchell  suggested  that  the 
coal  could  be  weighed  at  the  foot  of  the 
shaft.  Commissioner  Watkins  asked  if 
it  would  not  be  necessary  to  install  a 
weighing  plant  at  each  vein  from  which 
coal  is  hoisted.  The  witness  agreed  this 
was  so,  but  admitted,  in  answer  to  Mr. 
Lenahan’s  inquiry,  that  the  Mt.  Pleas- 
ant is  the  only  one  of  the  three  col- 
lieries at  w'hich  coal  is  hoisted  from 
more  than  one  level. 

To  emphasize  the  danger  of  destruc- 
tion to  property  threatened  by  the 
steam  men’s  strike,  and  the  efforts  of 
the  strikers  to  prevent  the  places  of  the 
steam  men  being  filled,  Attorney  Bun- 
had  the  witness  give  some  figures  on 
the  pumping  operations  at  these  three 
collieries. 

It  was  with  surprise  that  the  com- 
missioners heard  Superintendent  Yon 
Bergen  say  that  in  the  course  of  a year 
the  company  hoists  more  wrater  than  it 
does  coal.  In  twenty-four  hours  there 
is  pumped  from  the  Pine  Brook,  2.6S0,- 
000  gallons;  from  the  Capouse,  3,560,000 
gallons,  and  from  the  Mt.  Pleasant,  1,- 


750,000  gallons.  Five  days’  idleness  of 
the  pumps  would  flood  the  mines  to 
such  an  extent  that  it  is  problematic  if 
they  could  be  reclaimed. 

Mt.  Pleasant  Strike. 

As  an  instance  of  the  trouble  the 
union  had  brought  on,  the  witness  told 
that  on  October  1,  1901,  the  Mt.  Pleasant 
miners  went  on  strike  because  he  would 
not  permit  the  inspection  of  union  cards 
on  the  company’s  property  or  agree  to 
collect  the  union  dues.  Two  wTeeks  later 
the  men  came  back  to  work  w-ithout 
either  demand  being  conceded. 

There  is  a check  docking  boss,  he 
told  on  cross-examination,  at  the  Pine 
Brook  and  Mt.  Pleasant  collieries,  and 
the  company  quite  approves  of  them. 
Instead  of  docking  a man  for  topping, 
the  foreman  sets  a “short  topped”  car 
aside  and  calls  the  miner’s  attention  to 
it.  This,  it  has  been  found,  has  a better 
effect  than  docking. 

John  F.  Cummings,  outside  division 
superintendent  of  the  collieries  within 
the  city  of  Scranton;  John  Berkheiser, 
division  inside  superintendent  of  the 
Priceburg  and  North  Scranton  col- 
lieries, and  John  Aitken,  division  out- 
side foreman  of  the  upper  valley  col- 
lieries, gave  testimony  along  the  same 
general  lines  as  the  preceding  Ontario 
and  Western  witnesses.  Both  averred 
that  they  never  heard  a complaint 
against  the  per  car  system  of  payment; 
knew  of  no  blacklist  or  discrimination, 
and  that  efficiency  and  discipline  have 
been  noticeably  impaired  by  the  seem- 
ing assurance  among  the  men  that  the 
union  will  save  them  from  the  conse- 
quences of  neglect  and  disobedience  of 
orders. 

D.,  L.  & W.  Case. 

It  wras  an  hour  and  a half  before  ad- 
journing time  when  Attorney  Wilson 
began  the  presentation  of  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  com- 
pany’s case,  with  the  following  address: 
Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  th* 

Commission — 

Representing  the  Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  company,  we  deem  it 
wise,  before  the  introduction  of  our  evi- 
dence, to  make  a statement  of  the  facts 
which  we  conceive  to  be  at  issue,  and  of 
the  proof  in  support  ef  our  contention  as 
to  these  facts  which  we  propose  to  sub 
mit  to  the  commission. 

We  will  show  that  the  mine  employes 
of  our  company  have,  prior  to  the  strike 
of  1900,  been  contented;  that  the  rela- 
tions of  employer  and  employe  were  ami- 
cable and  friendly,  to  a marked  degree; 
that  repeated  conferences  have  taken 
place  between  the  officials  of  our  com- 
pany and  its  employes,  in  w-hich  any 
matters  at  variance  between  them  have 
been  adjusted  without  friction,  and  that 
the  employes  have  always  received  wages 
commensurate  with  their  duties  and  re- 
sponsibilities. 

We  will  show  that  since  the  strike  of 
1900  and  the  advent  of  unionism  it  has 
been  extremely-  difficult  to  maintain  dis- 
cipline: that  our  company  has  still  con- 
tinued to  follow  out  a course  of  treat- 
ment of  its  employes  along  humane  lines, 
and  has  endeavored  at  all  times  to  pro- 
mote the  Interests  of  all  concerned. 


We  will  show  that  the  ciass  of  labor 
employed  by  our  company  is  fully  the 
equal  in  intelligence  with  any  class  of 
workmen  found  in  the  anthracite  produc- 
ing counties,  and  we  propose  also  to  show 
by  union  and  non-union  employes,  who, 
from  time  to  time,  have  been  brought 
into  conference  with  the  officials  of  our 
company  as  members  of  various  commit- 
tees, that  they  have  been  listened  to  and 
given  courteous  treatment;  that  they 
have  been  treated  in  a manner  deemed 
by  them  to  be  fair  and  equitable,  and 
that  they  have  not  been  riiscriminated 
against  because  of  their  being  connected 
with  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America. 

The  conditions  under  which  anthracite 
coal  is  mined  at  the  various  mines  by  our 
company  will  be  shown  to  vary  in  a 
very  marked  degree.  We  will  show  you 
that  the  adjustments  made  from  time  to 
time,  by  reason  of  such  variations,  have 
been  fair  and  equitable;  that  years  of 
experience  in  producing  anthracite  coal 
has  resulted  in  the  payment  to  our  em- 
ployes of  sums  equal  to  the  average  paid 
for  like  skill  and  labor  in  other  occupa- 
tions; and  where  the  employes  have 
taken  advantage  of  the  opportunities  af- 
forded them,  and  have  applied  them- 
selves diligently  to  their  work,  it  will 
appear  that  they  have  earned  an  amount 
at  least  equal,  if  not  in  excess  cf  any 
other  calling  requiring  like  skill  and 
judgment. 

Against  tlie  Strike. 

We  believe  and  think  we  can  show  that 
at  least  eighty  per  cent,  of  our  employes 
voted  against  the  inauguration  of  the  re- 
cent strike,  and  that  when  such  strike 
took  place  our  employes  suspended  work, 
not  by  reason  of  any  grievance  or  fault 
with  either  their  hours  of  labor  or  the 
rate  of  remuneration,  but  by  reason  of 
the  fear  born  within  them  that  if  they 
failed  to  submit  to  the  dictation  of  the 
officials  of  the  union  they  would  be  called 
“scabs”  and  “traitors,”  and  their  wives 
and  families  ostracized  and  their  lives 
made  burdensome. 

Some  time  ago,  by  reason  of  an  acci- 
dent which  took  place  in  one  of  the 
mines  of  the  company,  it  was  found  ne- 
cessary to  inaugurate  a.  system  whereby 
each  man  going  into  the  mines  or  leav- 
ing it,  could  be  accounted  for,  so  that 
the  person  in  charge  of  that  mine 
could  at  all  times  account  as  to 
the  number  of  men  on  duty,  whether 
working  by  contract  upon  his  own  time 
or  not.  We  will  show  by  this  system 
that  the  average  number  of  hours  spent 
by  contract  miners  in  the  mines  have  not 
been  excessive,  and,  in  fact,  that  they 
have  been  less  than  the  hours  for  which 
they  ask  through  Mr.  Mitchell. 

The  system  of  payment  In  vogue  by  our 
company  is  one  which  has  been  tried 
and  proven  for  a great  number  of  years, 
and  has  resulted,  we  believe  and  shall 
show,  in  the  adoption  of  such  methods  as 
secure  a just  equivalent  of  wages  in  re- 
turn for  labor  performed. 

We  pay  on  the  car  basis.  This  system 
is  eminently  fair  and  eriuitable.  When- 
ever a miners  fails  to  earn  a fair  day’s 
pay  for  an  honest  day’s  work,  we  make 
an  allowance  by  giving  him  an  extra 
price  per  car,  sufficient  to  make  up  this 
fair  day’s  pay,  the  minimum  of  which  is 
$2.75.  The  car  basis  is  as  fair  a unit  of 
measurement  as  a miner’s  ton,  or  a 
pound,  or  measurement  by  the  yard. 

We  will  show  that  tne  art  of  mining 
in  common  with  other  industries,  has 
been  a progressive  one;  that  as  rapidly 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

as  new  methods  have  been  discovered 
which  justified  adoption,  that  such  adop- 
tion has  been  made  by  our  company ; and 
that  any  new  method  adopted,  which  re- 
sulted in  an  increase  in  the  amount  of 
tabor  performed  by  any  employe  has  been 
fully  compensated  by  an  increase  in  the 
remuneration  paid  him  therefor. 

We  feel  justified  in  denying,  in  the 
strongest  terms  possible,  that  the  mine 
workers  have  proven  specifically  upon  the 
witness  stand  any  of  the  complaints 
which  they  have  heretofore  alleged  ex- 
isted against  our  company,  in  common 
with  other  anthracite  mine  operators,  and 
that  any  disagreement  has  at  any  time 
taken  place  between  this  company  and  its 
employes  such  as  would  warrant  any 
foundation  for  any  part  of  such  com- 
plaint. 

Never  Imported  Criminals. 

In  contradiction  to  the  statement  of  Mr. 
Mitchell  in  his  speech  at  Philadelphia, 
Pa.,  on  September  26  or  27  last,  we  will 
prove  that  this  company  did  not,  at  any 
time,  import  criminals  from  that  city  or 
any  other  city,  to  preserve  peace  in  and 
around  its  mines.  It  will  show  that  the 
coal  and  iron  police  were  persons  of  good 
character  and  who  had  oeen  in  its  em- 
ploy for  periods  ranging  from  two  to  for- 
ty years. 

With  reference  to  the  employment  of 
children  of  tender  years,  we  will  show 
that  in  no  case  does  it  employ  children, 
unless  it  is  ascertained  from  parents  or 
guardians  that  the  persons  seeking  em- 
ployment come  within  the  rules  pre- 
scribed by  the  acts' of  assembly. 

In  conclusion,  feeling  assured  that  your 
award  will  be  such  as  to  commend  itself 
to  the  judgment  of  this  nation,  and  re- 
asserting our  willingness  to  be  governed 
by  your  decree,  when  proof  of  these  facts 
and  any  others  entering  into  the  contro- 
versy, which  may  be  deemed  worthy  of 
notice,  shall  have  been  properly  pro- 
duced before  this  commission,  we  shall 
ask  that  your  honorable  body  incorporate 
in  your  award,  having  reference  speci- 
fically to  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  Railroad  company  and  its  em- 
ployes, that  it  and  they  be  allowed  to 
continue  to  exercise  the  functions  and 
duties  vested  in  them  by  law,  and  com- 
prehended in  the  relation  of  employer 
and  employe,  without  let  or  hindrance, 
and  without  interference  or  any  person 
or  persons  who  are  not  parties  to  such 
relation,  or  who  have  no  privity  or  con- 
tract with  it,  to  the  end  that  the  indus- 
trial peace,  so  often  broken  during  the 
recent  years  by  unwarranted  interference, 
may  once  more  obtain,  and  that  the 
reign  of  disorder  and  chaos  in  the  anthra- 
cite mine  field  shall  forever  cease. 

Testimony  of  Reese  Phillips. 

After  putting  in  evidence  the  charters 
under  which  the  Delaware,  Lackawan- 
na and  Western  company  is  authorized 
“to  mine,  purchase,  transport  and  vend 
coal,”  Major  Warren  called  as  the  first 
witness,  Reese  A.  Phillips,  general  su- 
perintendent of  the  coal  mining  depart- 
ment. Mr.  Phillips  is  accredited  with 
being  one  of  the  best  posted  men  in  the 
anthracite  field  and  his  testimony  was 
in  consequence  listened  to  with  close  at- 
tention. 

The  company,  he  said,  operates  twen- 
ty breakers,  thirty  openings  and  six 
washeries,  and  employs  about  12,000 
men.  All  its  mines  are  ventilated  by 


153 

the  exhaust  fan  system,  the  best  and 
most  modern  system  of  ventilation. 

He  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the 
miners  today  are  not,  on  the  whole,  as 
skillful  as  they  were  ten  or  fifteen 
years  ago.  Fully  35  per  cent,  of  them 
at  present  are  from  non-English  speak- 
ing countries.  They  cannot  be  as  read- 
ily instructed  as  could  the  Welsh,  Irish 
and  Scotch  miners  who  were  the  earlier 
miners.  The  latter  became  skilled  very 
rapidly. 

The  company  pays  entirely  on  the 
per-car  basis,  the  price  varying  ac- 
cording to  the  veins.  Where  a vein  is 
hard  to  mine  allowances  are  made  on 
the  car  price,  so  as  to  bring  the  miners’ 
pay  up  to  a minimum  of  $2.75  per  day. 
If  the  miner  has  to  work  eight  or  nine 
hours  a shift,  he  is  usually  given  al- 
lowances which  will  bring  his  pay  up 
to  $3  a day. 

It  has  always  been  customary  for  the 
laborer  to  receive  one-third  of  the 
gross  earnings  of  his,  miner.  However, 
this  is  not  uniform.  Old  miners  have 
been  wont  to  seek  out  a particularly 
good  laborer  who  can  help  him  do  the 
cutting  and  pay  him  25  cents  a day 
more  than  the  customary  allowance. 

In  none  of  the  Lackawanna  com- 
pany’s mines  does  the  miner  employ 
more  than  one  laborer,  except  in  some 
few  instances  where  heading  work  or 
the  like  is  being  done  by  contract.  This 
is  easily  off-set  by  the  number  of 
miners  who  work  single-handed.  When 
a place  is  being  worked  four-handed 
both  miners  get  numbers,  that  is,  each 
miner  is  accredited  on  the  company’s 
books  as  a contractor.  It  is  a safe  cal- 
culation to  subtract  one-third  and  cost 
of  supplies  from  the  miner’s  gross  earn- 
ings to  find  what  his  net  earnings 
amount  to. 

The  company  has  five  sizes  of  cars: 
The  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern standard  car,  83  37-100  cubic  feet; 
the  iron  bottom  car,  86  18-100  cubic  feet; 
the  Diamond  low  car,  81  cubic  feet; 
the  Bliss  car,  114  cubic  feet,  and  the 
Hampton  car,  81  cubic  feet.  These  cu- 
bical measurements  include  six  inches 
of  topping.  The  cars  vary  in  size  be- 
cause of  the  variation  in  the  thickness 
of  the  veins.  There  are  different  prices 
for  the  different  cars. 

Docking  is  done  for  rock,  light  load- 
ing and  culm.  A miner  is  not  docked 
for  every  “dirty”  car.  The  first  time 
he  sends  out  a car  containing  an  un- 
necessary amount  of  impurities,  he  is 
given  a demerit  mark  and  notified.  The 
second  time  he  is  given  another  demer- 
it mark  and  again  notified.  The  third 
time  he  is  docked.  The  impurities  of 
the  first  two  cars  are  not  taken  into 
consideration  when  he  is  being  docked 
for  the  third  or  successive  dirty  cars. 

There  are  no  check  docking  bosses  at 
the  Lackawanna  collieries.  The  men 
never  asked  for  them. 

“I  have  no  objection  to  a check  dock- 
ing boss,”  Colonel  Phillips  unhesitating- 
ly declared.  “If  the  men  made  a re- 
quest for  them,  I would  very  willingly 
grant  the  request.” 


154 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


The  statistics  on  docking,  filed  with 
the  commissioners,  show  that  the  dock- 
ing at  the  Lackawanna  collieries 
amounts  to  only  two  per  cent.  This, 
the  witness  stated,  would  be  still  fur- 
ther decreased  to  one  and  one-half  per 
cent.,  if  the  Bliss  colliery  output  was 
eliminated  from  the  calculation.  There 
was  constant  “narrow”  or  rock  work 
going  on  there  during  the  period  upon 
which  the  calculation  was  based,  and 
the  docking  boss  made  no  distinction 
between  the  cars  sent  up  from  the 
"narrow”  work  and  those  from  the 
chambers.  As  a consequence,  the  dock- 
age at  this  colliery  was  nearly  5 per 
cent. 

No  Complaint  of  Docking. 

The  witness  declared  he  never  heard 
a complaint  about  excessive  docking. 
Once  in  a conversation  with  a neigh- 
bor who  is  a contract  miner  for  the 
company  and  “a  good  union  man,”  the 
latter  averred  that  the  men  were  being 
excessively  docked.  The  witness  chal- 
lenged the  statement  and  to  make  a 
test  of  the  matter  he  immediately 
drove  to  the  nearest  Lackawanna  col- 
liery with  the  complaining  miner  and 
substituted  him  for  the  regular  dock- 


ing boss,  after  exacting  from  him  a 
promise  that  he  would  honestly  and 
fairly  do  the  docking  according  to  his 
best  judgment.  At  the  end  of  the  day 
the  docking  was  figured  up,  and  it  was 
found  that  the  substitute  had  docked 
eight  per  cent.  The  dockage  by  the 
regular  docking  boss  averaged  one-half 
of  one  per  cent.  The  complaining 
miner  sought  out  the  superintendent 
the  next  day  and  admitted  that  he  was 
in  the  wrong. 

Major  Warren  asked  for  the  name  of 
this  miner.  Colonel  Phillips  shook  his 
head  and  with  a meaningful  smile  said: 
“Oh,  no,  that  wouldn’t  do.  That  man 
has  got  to  live  up  there.” 

President  Mitchell  protested  that  it 
was  not  fair  to  say  the  miner  in  ques- 
tion is  “a  good  union  man,”  unless  his 
name  is  given  that  his  standing  may 
be  inquired  into. 

The  witness  said  that  if  Mr.  Mitchell 
doubted  the  truthfulness  of  the  story, 
the  company  would  agree  to  let  him 
or  Attorney  McCarthy,  who  was  a 
miner,  or  any  other  representative  of 
the  miners  go  to  any  of  its  collieries 
and  act  as  docking  boss  for  a day,  and 
if  he  didn’t  dock  more  than  the  com- 


pany’s docking  boss  has  been  docking, 
the  company  will  pay  the  expense  of 
making  the  experiment. 

The  offer  was  not  accepted.  Instead, 
Mr.  Mitchell  renewed  his  protest  against 
the  witness,  saying  that  “a  good  union 
man”  had  docked  his  fellow  workmen 
sixteen  times  greater  than  a company 
docking  boss  would. 

Colonel  Phillips  persisted  in  his  refus- 
al to  divulge  the  name,  and  Judge  Gray 
upheld  him  to  the  extent  of  saying  he 
saw  no  reason,  considering  all  the  cir- 
cumstances, why  the  name  should  be 
divulged.  The  witness  made  the  fur- 
ther statement  that  he  knew  the  miner 
was  a “good  union  man”  because  he 
was  a good  fellow  to  begin  -with,  and 
held  a position  of  trust  in  the  union. 

As  an  additional  evidence  of  the  com- 
pany’s leniency  in  docking,  the  witness 
stated  that  four  times  as  much  refuse 
goes  to  the  rock  dump  alone  as  is 
docked  from  the  miners’  cars. 

Colonel  Phillips’  further  examination 
was  interrupted  by  the  arrival  of  the 
adjourning  hour,  when  the  parting 
speech  of  President  Mitchell  was  deliv- 
ered. 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Jan.  19. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  20.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  19.— Extensive  tes- 
timony was  presented  today  by  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
company  with  a particular  view  of 
showing  the  mine  strike  commission 
that  it  is  less  work  and  not  more  wages 
that  the  miners’  union  is  striving  for. 
Two  witnesses,  Superintendent  R.  A. 
Phillips,  of  the  company’s  mining  de- 
partment, and  Richard  Walsh,  a union 
miner  from  the  Cayuga,  testified  posi- 
tively, the  one  from  statistics  and  the 
other  from  actual  experience,  that  the 
coming  of  the  union  has  accomplished 
only  a diminution  of  work  for  the  con- 
tract miner. 

Superintendent  Phillips  testified  that 
the  average  earnings  of  a miner  prior 
to  1900  were  $3.10  a day,  and  that  the 
same  figure  represents  his  average 
earnings  in  1901.  The  ten  per  cent,  in- 
crease gained  in  1900,  he  declared,  prof- 
ited the  miner  nothing,  save  a contrac- 
tion of  his  already  short  work  day. 

Mr.  Welsh  told  that  his  average  earn- 
ings for  fifteen  years,  prior  to  1900,  were 
greater  than  they  were  in  1901.  Before 
the  coming  of  the  union,  he  said,  an  in- 
dustrious miner  could  make  good 
wages.  He  had  made  between  $70  and 
$90  a month.  Since  the  union  placed 
limitations  on  the  amount  of  work  he 
is  permitted  to  do,  he  cannot  earn  these 
amounts  even  with  the  ten  per  cent, 
increase.  Last  month,  he  said,  he  was 
not  even  allowed  to  load  the  regular 
shift  of  seven  cars.  His  driver  boy 
told  him  the  union  had  directed  him  not 
to  deliver  more  than  five  or  six  cars. 

Men  Never  Complained. 

Superintendent  Phillips  gave  inter- 


esting testimony  along  general  lines. 
Among  other  things  he  said  that  the 
men  had  never  complained  against  the 
per-car  system  of  payment,  except  in 
being  parties  to  the  general  demand  for 
payment  by  weight  as  put  forth  from 
the  Shamokin  convention.  Payment  by 
car,  he  said,  was  eminently  fair  and 
had  always  been  satisfactory  until  the 
union  came  upon  the  scene.  He  fur- 
ther declared  that  80  per  cent,  of  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
miners  were  opposed  to  the  strike  of 
1902,  and  that  if  it  was  not  for  fear  of 
violence  practically  all  of  them  would 
have  returned  to  work  after  the  first 
few  months  of  the  strike. 

Dr.  J.  M.  Wainwright,  of  the  Moses 
Taylor  hospital,  was  the  only  other 
witness  of  the  day.  He  gave  testimony 
contradictory  to  the  claim  that  mining 
is  an  unhealthy  occupation. 

MORNING  SESSION. 


Direct  Examination  of  Supt.  Phillips 
Conducted  by  Major  Warren. 

The  direct  examination  of  Reese  A. 
Phillips,  general  superintendent  of  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
mining  department,  was  resumed  by- 
Major  Warren  at  the  opening  of  the 
morning  session.  He  was  on  the  stand 
for  two  hours  in  the  morning  and 
again  for  an  hour  in  the  afternoon, 
when  he  was  cross-examined  by  Mr. 
Darrow,  prompted  by  Mr.  Murphy. 

The  examination  was  substantially  as 
follows: 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  At  the  adjournment  on  Saturday,  Mr. 
Phillips,  we  were  discussing  the  question 


of  docking.  I would  like  to  have  you  te  1 
the  commission,  if  you  know,  the  per- 
centage of  cars  docked  for  light  loading 
during  the  year  1901 — that  is,  for  lack  of 
the  required  topping.  A.  The  topping,  I 
ihink  you  mean? 

Q.  The  topping:  yes  A.  In  the  year 
1901  that  averaged  one-half  of  one  per 

cent. 

Q.  In  other  words,  the  docking  for  the 
lack  of  topping  is  practically  nothing? 
A Practically  nothing:  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Another  thing;  your  docking  bosses 
are  union  men,  are  they  not?  A.  Yes.  sir; 
I think  our  decking  bosses  are  all  uni  n 
men.  I presume  that  is  the  reason  they 
have  not  asked  for  any  check  docking 
bosses. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  difficulty 
whatever  with  your  men  upon  this  ques- 
tion of  docking?  A.  No,  sir:  none  what- 
ever. In  fact,  every  man  that  I have 
spoken  to  has  always  said  that  he  was 
perfectly  satisfied  with  the  manner  in 
which  we  do  our  docking. 

Q.  Now,  I would  like  to  have  you  tell 
the  commission  what  possible  advantage 
there  could  be  if  the  system  of  payment 
by  car,  which  you  say  has  been  in  vogue 
in  your  company  for  thirty,  forty  or  fifty 
years— ever  since  the  company  com- 
menced mining  coal — should  be  changed 
either  to  payment  by  weight  or  payment 
by  the  yard? 

A.  Well,  I cannot  see  where  there 
would  be  any  advantage,  whatever,  gained 
by  the  miner  in  changing  from  the  car 
basis  to  the  weight  basis.  If  we  were 
docking  to  a great  extent  for  light  load- 
ing, say  four  or  five  per  cent.,  I should 
think  then  they  would  have  some  argu- 
ment for  changing  to  the  weighing  of 
coal.  But  under  the  present  system  that 
we  have  of  paying  by  the  car,  and  our 
present  equitable  and  fair  method  of 
docking,  I cannot  see  where  there  is  any- 
thing whatever  gained  by  the  miner. 


For  another  thing,  the  class  of  miners 
employed  by  our  company  are  considered, 
I think,  in  the  coal  region,  superior  to 
a great  many  and  equal  to  them  all— 
that  is,  their  character,  their  reputation, 
their  efficiency  or  qualifications,  or  what- 
ever you  may  call  it.  They  are  looked 
upon  as  being  the  better  class  of  miners; 
and  they  have  always  been  accustomed 
to  mining  on  the  car  basis.  When  the 
miner  comes  out  at  night  he  can  easily 
find  out  just  exactly  what  he  earned  that 
day;  and  by  referring  to  the  dockage 
sheet,  which  is  hung  up  immediately  af- 
ter it  is  balanced,  which  requires  about 
fifteen  or  twenty  minutes,  or  in  the 
morning,  they  can  know  exactly  what 
they  earned  the  next  day. 

The  Chairman:  The  day  before. 

The  Witness:  Yes,  sir,  the  day  before. 
Another  thing  that  I should  think  would 
be  a disadvantage  to  the  miners,  is  the 
dissatisfaction  that  now  appears  to  exist 
with  the  miners  and  the  employers  on  the 
weighing  basis.  It  seems  to  me  there  ;s 
a great  deal  of  dissatisfaction  in  regard 
to  the  number  of  pounds  that  they  have 
to  give  for  a ton  of  coal,  to  make  up  for 
the  waste.  Under  our  system,  there  is 
no  docking  for  the  waste;  they  get  paid 
by  the  car,  or  by  the  box. 

By  Mr.  Warren;  Q.  Did  you  ever  hear 
of  any  demand  among  your  men  for  a 
change  in  the  method  of  payment? 

No  Demands  from  Miners. 

A.  No,  I was  going  to  say  that  we  have 
been  in  business  ever  since  1852,  I think, 
and  we  have  never  had  a demand  from 
our  miners,  until  the  advent  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  to  change  from  the  car 
to  the  weighing  basis. 

Q.  You  were  a foreman  at  the  Pettibone 
and  you  were  a foreman  at  the  Oxford? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  a large  number  of  men, 
with  whom  you  were  immediately  con- 
nected and  associated?  A Yes,  sir;  and 
I want  to  say  this — that  particularly  over 
on  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  Scranton 
I think  I am  personally  acquainted  with 
85  per  cent  of  our  miners.  I meet  them 
on  the  street,  in  churches  and  secret 
organizations,  and,  in  fact,  we  are  very 
closely  connected;  and  I have  not  yet 
heard  one  of  our  miners  say  that  they 
would  rather  go  on  the  weighing  basis, 
when  you  get  to  talking  to  them  outside 
of  their  union  business.  In  other  words, 
for  instance,  if  you  meet  a man  and  have 
a good  heart-to-heart  talk  with  him  and 
say:  ‘Which  would  you  rather  do — re- 

main on  the  car  basis  or  change  to  the 
weighing  basis?”  I have  never  yet  met 
one  of  that  class  of  miners  who  has  said 
that  he  would  rather  change  to  the 
weighing  basis.  I think  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  that  is  the  feeling  among  the  Eng- 
lish-speaking miners.  Of  course,  I have 
not  had  so  much  talk  with  what  we  call 
the  foreign  element. 

By  Commissioner  Wright: 

Q.  Do  you  have  check  docking  bosses? 
A.  No,  sir;  we  have  no  check  docking- 
bosses.  We  have  never  had  a request  for 
one.  All  of  our  docking  bosses  are  mem- 
bers of  the  union;  some  of  them  are  sec- 
retaries of  their  locals.  They  have  been 
docking  bosses,  many  of  them,  for  a 
great  many  years.  Some  of  them  have 
grown  old  and  gray  in  the  service,  as 
they  say. 

Mr.  Warren:  The  witness  testified  Sat- 
urday, Mr.  Wright,  that  the  average 
docking,  not  for  light  loading,  but  for 
impurities,  in  the  year  1901.  was  only  a 
little  over  one  per  cent. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


By  Mr.  Warren; 

Q.  I should  like  to  ask  you  generally, 
as  to  this  question  of  docking,  not  only 
for  light  loading,  but  for  impurities, 
whether  it  is  a matter  of  any  moment, 
as  between  the  men  and  the  company? 
A.  No,  no;  none  whatever. 

Q.  Now,  suppose  a man  were  to  send 
out  five  cars  as  a shift,  and  there  were 
two  that  would  be  light-loaded,  with  con- 
siderably below  six  inches  of  topping.  A. 
Why,  the  chances  are  he  never  would  be 
docked  at  all;  he  would  not  be  docked  at 
all.  Now,  you  take  our  percentage  of 
docks  for  light  loading,  only  being  one- 
half  of  one  per  cent;  and  if  they  were 
docking  at  that  rate,  if  the  man  would 
send  out  five  cars  and  two  or  three  of 
them  had  been  loaded  light,  that  docking 
for  light  loading  would  certainly  be  more 
than  one-half  of  one  per  cent.  It  is  evi- 
dent on  the  face  of  it  that  there  is  very 
little  of  that  done. 

Question  of  Cars. 

Q.  Now,  Colonel,  about  this  question  cf 
cars.  We  have  heard  considerable  testi- 
mony from  our  friends  on  the  other  sice 
about  cars,  sort  of  innocently  or  in  a 
round-about  way  becoming  larger  without 
any  corresponding  increase  in  pay,  either 
due  to  the  car  going  into  the  repair  shop 
to  repair  and  being  a little  bit  larger 
when  it  comes  out,  or  to  their  having 
what  they  have  jocularly  called  the  live- 
oak  car.  Now,  what  is  the  space  between 
the  car  and  the  cage,  your  car?  When  it 
comes  out  a new  car,  what  opportunity 
is  there  for  increase  as  to  the  width,  to 
be  used  on  your  cages?  A.  Between  the 
bumper  of  the  car  and  the  edge  of  the 
cage?  Q.  Yes.  A I could  not  give  you 
the  exact  size;  but,  on  account  of  seeing 
it  so  often  and  coming  in  contact  with  it, 
1 do  not  believe  we  have  more  than  two 
to  three  inches  play  on  each  end.  When 
the  cage  goes  up  and  down  the  shaft, 
when  it  passes  the  fans — what  we  call 
the  fans— (or  possibly  the  word  “keeps” 
would  be  better),  it  just  passes,  and  that 
is  all;  because  if  you  have  too  much  play 
there,  when  the  keeps  are  thrown  out 
they  will  not  catch  the  carriage  to  hold 
it.  I have  heard  measurements  given  by 
some  of  the  men  on  the  stand  at  Scran- 
ton of  the  lengths  of  some  of  our  cars. 
If  we  had  the  lengths  which  they  gave, 
the  cars  could  not  go  down  our  shafts; 
it  would  be  utterly  impossible.  Of  course, 
there  is  just  this  about  the  mine  car  that 
I think  it  would  be  well  to  say — that  mine 
cars  are  not  made  by  cabinet  makers. 
They  are  made  from  good,  solid,  rough 
oak.  They  have  to  be  made  of  good 
solid  material,  and  there  is  a great  deal 
of  iron  connected  with  them.  A car  is 
supposed  to  be  seven  feet  long,  but  they 
may  vary  a sixteenth,  or  an  eighth,  or  a 
quarter  of  an  inch;  because,  as  1 said, 
they  are  not  made  by  cabinet  makers. 
Now,  after  the  cars  are  in  service  for 
some  time,  there  is  such  a thing  as  the 
door  being  sprung.  It  may  spring  out.  In 
that  case  it  lengthens  the  car  a quarter 
of  an  inch  or  a half  inch.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  getting  a bump,  or  what  we  call 
bumping  into  another  car,  if  the  bumper 
of  the  car  should  strike  the  door,  it 
would  have  a tendency  to  bend  the  door 
in,  and  shorten  the  length  of  that  car  a 
quarter  or  half  inch,  or,  possibly,  an  inch. 
It  is  the  same  way,  again,  in  loading  the 
car,  the  car  being  in  service  for  some 
length  of  time;  in  throwing  large  chunks 
of  coal  in,  they  strike  the  top  railing, 
and  the  top  railing  will  naturally,  in 
time,  be  worn  down  in  the  center,  so  that 
the  car  would  then  not  be  as  high  as  it 


155 


was  when  it  first  came  out  of  the  shop. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  throwing  a great 
deal  of  coal  out,  the  sides  may  bulge  out; 
the  mortises  may  widen  out  the  car  a 
quarter  or  half  an  inch  When  they  sa;. , 
therefore,  that  we  increase  the  size  of 
the  cars  continually,  I think  they  are 
wrong.  There  is  no  question  about  it; 
I know  they  are  wrong. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Phillips,  you  say  you  have 
never  heard  of  any  demand  from  your 
men  until  the  advent  of  the  union,  f r 
the  change  from  the  car  basis  to  the 
weight  basis.  What  man  in  the  employ 
of  your  company  has  ever  demanded  that, 
and  what  do  you  mean  by  saying  that 
you  have  heard  of  this  demand?  Do  >ou 
mean  that  you  have  seen  it  in  the  re- 
ports of  the  conventions  at  Shamokin 
and  Hazleton?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  I mean  is,  did  a committee 
of  the  men  working  for  the  D.,  L.  and 
W.  ever  see  you  or  any  other  superin- 
tendents, to  your  knowledge,  and  them- 
selves urge  upon  you  a change  in  the 
method  of  payment?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Phillips,  will  you  please 
tell  us  what  it  would  involve,  as  far  as 
your  company  is  concerned,  if  this  com- 
mission were  to  recommend  or  suggest  or 
decree  a change  in  the  method  of  pay- 
ment by  weight? 

Change  Impracticable. 

A.  Well,  it  is  a very  hard  matter  to  fig- 
ure the  cost  in  dollars  and  cents.  I do 
not  really  think  it  would  be  practical  with 
the  majority  of  our  collieries.  We  may 
have  two  or  three  collieries  where  it 
could  be  done.  For  instance,  in  the  case 
of  these  breakers  that  are  built  away 
from  the  heads  of  the  shafts,  where  the 
coal  is  hoisted  and  runs  from  the  head  of 
the  shaft  to  the  breaker,  a scale  possibly 
could  be  put  there.  There  is  no  question 
about  that.  But  in  the  case  of  our  old- 
time  breakers,  where  the  coal  is  hoisted 
direct  from  the  shaft  to  the  tipple, 
from  the  edge  of  the  carriage,  from 
where  the  car  stands  to  the  tipple,  there 
is  just  room  enough  for  the  car.  To  put 
in  scales  there,  or  extend  that  out,  you 
would  have  to  practically  change  ybur 
breaker  from  top  to  bottom  in  order  to 
get  the  necessary  pitch  for  the  coal  to 
run  in  the  breaker.  When  the  breaker 
was  planned  they  figured  on  having  that 
pitch  carried  right  out,  to  take  the  coal 
down  to  the  big  cars;  and  to  extend  that 
out,  you  would  have  to  reduce  your  pitch: 
and  there  would  be  no  room  to  put  it  in, 
because  the  coal  has  to  go  this  way  and 
back  again,  don’t  you  see?  It  changes 
around  from  screens  to  rolls,  and  from 
rolls  to  telegraphs  and  slate  pickers,  and 
different  things  of  that  kind,  so  that  it 
would  really  be  impracticable. 

Of  course  there  is  nothing  impossible 
about  placing  the  scales  there;  we  could 
go  to  work  and  rebuild  the  breaker  en- 
tirely, tear  it  down  and  rebuild  it;  but 
the  expense  in  that  case  would  be  possibly 
$125,000  for  each  breaker,  to  go  to  work 
and  put  the  scales  in  the  mines. 

There  are  a great  many  of  our  collieries 
that  hoist  right  from  four  or  five  different 
veins.  That  would  mean  a pair  of  scales 
for  each  vein.  You  would  have  to  cut 
in  the  solid  rock  to  get  room  for  your 
beams,  and  so  on.  Then,  where  they  are 
hoisting  from  five  different  veins,  it 
would  mean  five  sets  of  weighmasters. 
In  fact,  it  would  complicate  things  very 
much;  and  the  men  really  would  not  be  a 
bit  better  off. 

By  Commissioner  Clark: 

Q.  How  much  do  you  require  for  a ton? 
Oh,  you  do  not  weigh  at  all?  A.  We  do 


156 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


not  pay  by  the  ton.  All  of  our  miners 
are  paid  by  the  car. 

By  the  Chairman: 

Q.  Then,  by  paying  by  the  car,  you 
eliminate  the  troublesome  question  of 
how  much  you  should  require  for  a 
miner’s  ton?  A.  Yes,  sir — the  amount  of 
pound  or  hundred  weight  we  will  accept 
for  a ton. 

Q.  Now,  it  would  not  be  possible  for  any 
other  system  to  be  devised  including  pay- 
ment by  -weight  that  failed  to  recognize 
this  percentage  of  waste,  would  it?  You 
have  got  to  have  that  in  mind,  have  you 
not? 

As  to  the  Yard  System. 

A.  Yes;  I do  not  know  of  any  other  sys- 
tem. If  you  paid  by  the  yard,  on  the  Hat 
or  undulating  seams  you  will  have  a great 
deal  of  waste;  and  the  first  thing  you 
know  your  property  holders  will  be  af- 
ter you.  The  inspectors  will  come  in 
the  mines,  and  they  will  naturally  ask 
why  you  are  getting  so  much  waste;  be- 
cause the  miner  will  be  anxious  to  make 
yardage,  and  if  the  cars  are  run  slowly 
he  will  put  the  coal  in  the  gob,  or  cover 
it  up  with  rock,  or  something  like  that. 
That  will  all  go  to  make  up  the  yard, 
and  not  simply  the  coal  in  the  car.  So 
when  you  have  the  system  changed  to 
anything  else,  I cannot  see  anything  ex- 
cept a chance  for  a considerable  amount 
of  waste.  Of  course  where  we  pay  by  the 
yard  everything  is  loaded  up;  they  are 
not  docked  for  anything.  Another  respect 
in  which  there  would  be  a disadvantage 
by  weighing  in  the  old-time  breakers  is 
this— that  it  naturally  restricts  your  out- 
put considerably. 

First  of  all,  if  we  hoist  now  sixty  cars 
an  hour  (and  we  can  easily  hoist  sixty 
cars  an  hour  now),  the  minute  the  car  is 
hoisted  the  men  take  hold  of  it,  and  it 
is  dumped  and  put  right  back.  Now,  if 
that  car  has  got  to  be  weighed  on  the  top 
of  that  breaker,  it  will  take,  we  will  say, 
a minute,  to  weigh  it.  Then  the  output 
is  naturally  reduced  one-third;  and  when 
the  output  is  reduced,  you  will  either  have 
to  reduce  your  men  inside,  or  else  their 
earnings  would  naturally  be  reduced. 
Now,  that  being  so,  I cannot  see  for  one 
minute  how  it  can  be  done,  and  done  sat- 
isfactorily to  everybody. 

By  Commissioner  Wilson: 

It  would  be  a pretty  difficult  proposition 
to  do  anything  and  make  it  satisfactory 
to  everybody,  would  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
I presume  it  would  be.  It  is  pretty  hard 
to  satisfy  everybody. 

By  Commissioner  Wright: 

Q.  Is  it  impossible  to  run  your  breaker 
the  full  time  every  day?  Suppose  you 
had  sufficient  competent  men  to  keep 
them  at  work  all  the  time;  could  you  not 
run  your  breaker  most  of  the  time?  A. 
Yes,  indeed,  we  could;  but— 

Q.  Even  if  you  stored  coal?  A.  I want 
to  say  yes,  we  could;  but  we  have  got 
to  increase  the  number  of  men  continu- 
ally at  all  of  our  collieries,  so  as  to  keep 
them  going  eight  or  nine  hours.  A few 
years  ago  we  could  run  our  collieries  and 
get  out  just  as  much  coal  as  we  do  now 
with  ten  per  cent,  less  men.  The  men 
then  used  to  load  six  cars  and  seven 
cars  per  shift— that  is,  according  to  the 
division.  Today  they  are  trying  to  re- 
duce that  seven  and  six  cars  to  a five  and 
six  car  standard;  and  by  doing  that  we 
naturally  lose  that  much  coal.  Conse- 
quently, we  have  got  to  put  in  a surplus 
amount  of  men  to  overcome  that.  Then, 
when  there  is  such  a thing  as  the  break- 
ers running  slack,  or  no  demand  for  coal, 
during  warm  weather,  the  summer  sea- 


son, of  course  the  men  cannot  work  then, 
and  so  we  only  get  three  and  four  cars. 
Now,  why  is  that?  For  the  simple  reason 
that  we  have  a surplus  of  men,  and  we 
have  to  put  this  surplus  of  men  on  to 
keep  up  our  output.  If  the  men  would 
load  their  six  and  seven  cars,  as  they 
formerly  did,  we  would  not  have  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  men. 

Q.  Then  the  result  is  that  you  often 
store  men  instead  of  storing  coal?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  we  have  got  to  do  that.  We 
store  coal  as  well.  We  do  both,  you 
know. 

By  Commissioner  Watkins: 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  your  breaker 
capacity  now  is  much  larger  than  your 
capacity  to  produce  coal?  A . Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  the  reason  you  have  so  much 
short  breaker  time?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  aim  to  have  it  larger  than  your 
mining  capacity,  in  order  to  give  your 
miners  full  time?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Emergency  Hospital. 

The  witness  here  told  of  the  emer- 
gency hospitals  established  at  the  mines 
and  the  Moses  Taylor  hospital,  where 
employes  and  those  depending  on  them 
are  treated  free  of  charge.  He  also  de- 
scribed how  the  mine  ambulances  are 
cared  for  in  a sanitary  manner  and  how 
they  are  treated  when  brought  into  use. 
Physicians  are  engaged  by  the  com- 
pany to  instruct  foremen  and  all  bosses 
in  “first  aid  to  the  injured,”  and  they 
in  turn  instruct  the  company  hands. 

In  telling  about  the  ‘keg  funds,”  the 
witness  stated  that  since  the  1902  strike 
some  of  these  accidental  associations 
have  reorganized  and  excluded  non- 
union men,  especially  those  who  worked 
during  the  strike. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Phillips,  will  you  tell 
me  generally  as  to  your  observation  con- 
cerning the  causes  of  accidents  that  arise 
in  or  about  the  mines,  especially  as  to 
the  proportion  that  could  fairly  be 
charged  to  the  conditions  of  the  employ- 
ment? A.  Well,  during  my  observations, 
I attribute  forty  per  cent,  of  the  acci- 
dents in  the  mines,  around  the  mines, 
that  happen  to  the  persons  around  the 
mines,  to  the  carelessness  of  the  person 
Injured;  and  I think  you  can  rightly  say 
that  forty  per  cent,  are  caused  by  the 
over-confidence  of  the  person  injured.  I 
think  twenty  per  cent.,  again,  are 
caused  either  by  the  carelessness  or  the 
over-confidence  of  some  other  person. 

About  Child  Labor. 

By  Mr.  Warren: 

Q.  Just  a word  about  hiring  boys  in  the 
breaker — this  matter  of  child-labor.  Your 
company  requires  a certificate  from  the 
parents  or  guardian  of  the  boy,  that  he 
is  at  least  of  the  age  required  by  law, 
does  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir.  If  our  foreman 
is  in  doubt  as  to  a boy's  age,  he  re- 
quires the  boy  to  bring  a certificate  from 
his  parents  or  guardian.  We  have  blanks 
to  be  filled  up  for  that,  but  I do  not 
think  I have  one  here. 

Q.  They  furnish  these  certificates 
sworn  to  before  a justice  of  the  peace, 
or  alderman,  or  some  other  officer  cf 
that  kind?  A.  Y'es,  sir. 

Q.  What  provisions  have  you  for  heat- 
ing and  ventilating  your  breakers?  A. 
Our  breakers  are  heated  by  steam,  and, 
in  some  instances,  there  are  stoves  along 
with  the  steam;  they  tare  properly  ven- 
tilated and  they  are  also  properly 


equipped  with  exhaust  fans  for  removing 
the  dust  from  the  breaker. 

Q.  Prior  to  1900  and  the  advent  of  the 
union,  what  were  the  relations,  within 
your  knowledge,  betrveen  the  men  and 
their  employers,  as  to  the  various  matters 
that  would  naturally  come  up  for  dis- 
cussion or  agreement  between  them, amic- 
able, friendly  or  otherwise?  A.  They 
were  always  friendly  and  agreeable.  If 
any  of  our  employes  had  any  grievances, 
they  were  adjusted  the  same  as  they  a-e 
today.  They  were  taken  up  with  the 
mine  foreman,  and  if  the  men  thought 
that  the  mine  foreman  did  not  do  them 
justice,  then  they  would  appeal  to  th^ 
superintendent.  They  would  appeal  to 
the  inside  superintendent,  if  it  was  in- 
side, or  to  the  outside  superintendent  if 
it  was  outside. 

Q.  How  many  increases  have  your 
company  made  voluntarily  in  the  rate  cf 
wages,  prior  to  the  advent  of  unionism 
and  what  do  those  increases  amount  to. 
in  percentage,  if  you  can  recall,  sinc“ 
1877?  A.  I think  about  35  per  cent,  and 
including  the  10  per  cent,  granted  in  19  0. 
it  would  amount  to  45  per  cent. 

Q.  Now,  the  men  resuming  work  after 
the  1900  strike,  and  the  notice  having 
been  posted  that  your  company  would 
adjust  any  grievances  the  men  might 
have  which  they  thought  desirable  to  dis- 
cuss with  the  men,  I wish  you  would  tell 
us  whether  since  that  time  you  have 
had  interviews  with  grievance  commit- 
tees, as  they  call  them,  and  describe  a 
few  of  the  experiences  you  have  had 
with  those  committees,  these  union  men, 
I mean.  A.  We  have  had  a great  many 
grievance  committees,  and  the  great 
difficulty  I have  found  is  that  they  have 
been  unable  to  make  a proper  distinction 
between  the  word  “grievance”  and  the 
word  “discipline.”  For  instance,  I had  a 
committee  wait  on  me  at  one  time  from 
one  of  our  collieries 

The  Chairman:  When? 

One  of  the  Demands. 

A.  (Continued).  This  was  after  1901  or 
the  forepart  of  1902,  I am  not  sure  which 
The  committee  waited  upon  me  and 
asked,  in  other  word  demanded— because 
they  never  make  any  request;  it  is  al- 
ways a demand — they  demanded  that  we 
discharge  one  of  our  contract  miners  in 
the  mines  or  compel  him  to  join  the 
United  Mine  Workers.  I told  the  com- 
mittee that  I simply  could  not  grant  the 
demand.  That  this  was  a free  country, 
and  that  there  has  been  too  much  good 
blood  lost  not  to  make  it  a free  country, 
and  I did  not  want  to  be  a party  to  dis- 
rupt those  fundamental  principles  or 
compel  any  man  to  relinquish  his  rights 
as  an  American  citizen,  and  that  I 
thought  they  were  over-stepping  the 
bounds,  that  they  had  no  right  to  ask 
what  they  did;  that  that  man  had  a 
right  to  work  as  long  as  he  lived  up  to 
the  rules  and  regulations  prescribed  by 
the  company.  They  turned  around  and 
said  they  would  not  work  with  any  scab 
and  distinctly  gave  me  to  understand 
that  that  was  their  ultimatum:  that  if  I 
did  not  compel  him  to  join  the  union,  or 
discharge  him.  that  a strike  would  be 
inaugurated,  and  they  finally  did  inau- 
gurate a strike.  They  were  on  strike 
two  or  three  weeks,  but  finally  came 
around  and  asked  me  to  open  up  the  col- 
liery and  start.  They  made  that  as  a 
request.  I told  them  I would  grant  ti  e 
request,  but  that  to  demand  that  any 
man  should  give  up  his  rights  as  an 
American  citizen,  I could  not  stand  for 
that. 


Hours  of  the  Miners. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  the  average 
hour  is  at  which  the  D.,  L.  & W.  con- 
tract miner  goes  into  his  work?  A.  The 
D.,  L.  & W.  miners  enter  the  mines  be- 
tween the  hours  of  6.30  and  7 o'clock  in 
the  morning. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  as  to  the  time 
they  leave  the  mines?  A.  Well,  they 
leave  anywhere  from  9 o’clock  in  the 
morning  to  3 o’clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  established  any  rule 
requiring  them  to  remain  in  a certain 
number  of  hours? 

A.  Yes,  several  years  ago  our  company 
adopted  a rule  whereby  the  miners  were 
compelled  to  remain  in  their  rspective 
working  places  until  12  o’clock  noon. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  difficulty  in 
enforcing  that  rule?  A.  Yes,  sir;  we  have 
had  a great  deal  of  difficulty.  The  miners, 
particularly  those  in  the  good  places, 
have  a h abit  of  going  out  as  early 
as  they  possibly  can,  by  9 or  10  o’clock. 
In  their  anxiety  to  get  out  so  early  they 
become  careless  and  neglect  to  keep  their 
places  perfectly  safe  and  properly 
timbered  and  the  roads  in  good  con- 
dition, and  quite  frequently  they  have  not 
enough  coal  blown  down  even  in  these 
good  places  to  enable  their  laborers  to 
finish  their  shift. 

Q.  Has  a committee  ever  come  to  see 
you  about  this  matter  of  letting  the  min- 
ers out  before  12  o’clock,  noon?  A.  Yes, 
I have  had  a committee  come  to  me  re- 
cently, I think  it  was  from  our  Diamond 
mine,  and  they  asked  me  if  I would  not 
abolish  that  rule  and  let  the  men  come 
out  at  9 or  10  o’clock.  I told  them  1 
would  not  like  to  do  that,  but  as  long  as 
we  had  a second  opening  there  I would 
try  it  for  a while— because  I want  to  say 
as  far  as  that  rule  is  concerned  that  it  has 
been  very  hard  to  keep  it  up  anyway, 
because  they  are  very  anxious  to  get  out 
early  and  they  have  grandmothers  to 
bury  and  all  sorts  of  excuses.  I told  this 
committee  I would  abolish  it  in  this  par- 
ticular mine  provided  they  would  prom- 
ise to  make  their  best  endeavors  to  keep 
their  roads  safe  and  have  plenty  of  coal 
in  their  chambers  and  have  the  roofs 
properly  timbered  and  everything  of  that 
kind  in  good  condition,  and  that  they 
would  go  out  the  second  opening  and 
keep  away  from  the  main  shaft  so  as  not 
to  delay  the  hoisting  of  coal.  They  prom- 
ised me  they  would  and  the  rule  has  been 
abolished  as  far  as  that  particular  colliery 
is  concerned. 

Men  Opposed  Strike. 

Superintendent  Phillips  further  testi- 
fied that  80  per  cent,  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  men  were 
opposed  to  going  on  strike  in  1902,  and 
that  towards  the  end  of  the  strike  the 
men  were  returning  in  large  numbers. 
If  it  was  not  for  fear  of  violence,  prac- 
tically the  whole  force  would  have  been 
back  in  a short  time.  Of  the  12,000 
employes  2,100  of  them  were  back  at 
work  when  the  strike  ended,  the  wit- 
ness declared.  He  gave  figures  show- 
ing where  these  men  worked.  The 
greatest  number  was  at  the  Dodge,  145. 

The  company  employed  317  coal  and 
iron  police  during  the  strike,  and  every 
one  of  them  had  been  an  employe  of 
the  company  for  at  least  one  year. 

In  concluding,  the  witness  told  that 
30  per  cent,  of  the  company’s  employes 
own  their  own  homes,  and  that  one  of 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

the  company’s  contract  miners  volun- 
teered to  loan  him  money  when  he  was 
putting  up  his  own  home. 

Union  Miner’s  Evidence. 

The  next  witness  for  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company 
was  Richard  Walsh,  of  North  Scran- 
ton, a union  miner,  employed  at  the 
Cayuga  colliery.  He  has  had  thirty- 
three  years’  experience;  is  the  father  of 
sixteen  children,  nine  of  whom  are 
alive;  owns  property  valued  at  $2,700, 
and  all  in  all  is  very  well  content  with 
his  condition. 

Major  Warren  asked  him  if  he  earns 
as  much  now  as  he  did  prior  to  the  1900 
strike.  The  witness  emphatically  de- 
clared he  did  not.  The  union  restricts 
him  to  six  cars  a day,  he  said.  Prior 
to  the  coming  of  the  union,  when  there 
were  no  restrictions  on  a man’s  capac- 
ity, he  earned  $70  to  $90  a month.  Even 
with  the  10  per  cent,  increase  his  earn- 
ings now  are  less. 

One  month  he  made  $112.  This,  he 
said,  was  before  the  coming  of  the 
union.  His  wages  for  the  fifteen  years 
prior  to  1900  averaged  more  than  they 
did  in  1901,  with  its  10  per  cent,  increase. 

Uneven  Restrictions. 

“I  am  making  less  money  now  than  I 
ever  did,”  said  the  witness,  “and  it  is 
all  because  of  the  union  restrictions.  1 
can’t  see  why  a man  isn’t  allowed  to 
earn  as  much  money  as  he  is  able  to 
earn.” 

On  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Darrow, 
the  witness  said  he  had  three  sons 
working  in  the  mines.  In  relation  to 
the  earning  of  $112  in  one  month,  prior 
to  1900,  the  witness  brushed  aside  the 
idea  that  it  was  earned  in  an  excep- 
tionally good  place,  by  stating  that  it 
was  a place  another  man  had  given  up. 

The  witness  said  he  averaged  be- 
tween five  and  six  cars  a day  during 
the  last  month.  The  shift  is  seven  cars. 
He  never  loaded  seven  cars  on  any  one 
day  in  the  last  month,  because  he 
couldn’t  get  them.  The  driver  boys 
would  not  give  him  more  than  five  or 
six. 

When  asked  by  Mr.  Darrow  how  he 
knew  it  was  the  driver  boy  who  re- 
stricted him  in  the  number  of  cars  he 
received,  the  witness  replied  that  the 
driver  boy  himself  told  him  so.  Mich- 
ael Lent,  he  said,  was  the  boy’s  name. 

Dr.  Wainwright’s  Testimony. 

Dr.  J.  M.  Wainwright,  of  the  Moses 
Taylor  hospital,  gave  testimony  re- 
garding the  health  of  miners.  There 
was  no  such  disease  as  miners’  asthma, 
he  declared.  The  same  affliction  called 
miners’  asthma  he  had  observed  fre- 
quently in  New  York.  The  miners,  he 
said,  are  not  peculiarly  liable  to  it. 

This  ended  the  morning  session. 

The  Afternoon  Session. 

Superintendent  Phillips  was  recalled 
at  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  session 
and  asked  concerning  the  firemen  at 
the  Hallstead  colliery.  The  witness 
stated  that  the  firemen  at  this  colliery 
went  on  strike  despite  the  fact  that 


157 

they  were  on  an  eight-hour  shift.  They 
said  they  had  been  ordered  by  the 
union  to  go  on  strike,  notwithstanding 
that  they  had  been  granted  an  eight- 
hour  day.  The  consequence  was  that 
the  mine  was  flooded  and  it  is  still 
flooded. 

Questioned  by  Major  Warren,  the 
witness  said  he  had  no  objection  to 
his  men  organizing  for  collective  bar- 
gaining. He  objected  to  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America  because  of 
its  methods.  One  of  the  chief  objec- 
tions to  the  organization  is  that  it  will 
not  permit  men  to  work  to  their  cap- 
acity. The  other  is  that  it  permits  boys 
to  participate  in  its  deliberations.  Boys 
less  than  21  years  of  age  should  be 
eliminated,  he  said. 

“That’s  a right  principle,”  said  Judge 
Gray.  “Only  mature  minds  should  be 
allowed  to  participate  in  the  voting.” 

“They  have  only  half  a vote,”  said 
Mr.  Darrow. 

“That’s  what  the  union  constitution 
says,”  declared  Mr.  Phillips,  “but  they 
are  allowed  a full  vote.  There  is  one 
local  in  North  Scranton  composed  en- 
tirely of  driver  boys.” 

Commissioner  Clark  put  to  Superin- 
tendent Phillips  the  same  questions  he 
put  to  General  Manager  May  as  to  how 
far  he  would  go  in  the  way  of  letting 
outside  parties  assist  in  settling  a dif- 
ference. The  witness  said  he  would  be 
willing,  if  he  and  a committee  of  em- 
ployes failed  to  agree,  to  let  the  men 
select  an  arbitrator  and  the  company 
an  arbitrator,  and  these  two  with  a 
third,  selected  by  them,  settle  the  dif- 
ference. The  witness  also  admitted 
that  if  his  company  brought  a lawyer 
into  a conference,  he  would  not  object 
to  the  men  bringing  in  Mr.  Mitchell  or 
any  other  representative  to  argue  for 
them.  Such  a thing,  however,  was  not 
necessary,  the  witness  insisted. 

In  answer  to  questions  by  Commis- 
sioner Watkins,  the  witness  said  there 
was  no  offer  by  his  company’s  employes 
to  deal  with  him  before  the  1902  strike 
was  declared.  The  only  offer  that  came 
to  his  company  was  an  invitation  to  go 
into  conference  between  all  the  com- 
panies on  the  one  side  and  all  the  mine 
employes  on  the  other.  This  invitation 
was  not  accepted.  The  company  ob- 
jected to  entering  such  a conference 
because  of  the  varying  conditions  in  the 
different  regions,  making  it  impossible 
to  agree  on  anything  like  a uniform  or 
minimum  wage. 

Regarding  the  strike  of  the  Hallstead 
firemen,  who  had  an  eight-hour  shift, 
Mr.  Darrow  sought  to  bring  out  an  ad- 
mission that  the  firemen  struck  because 
the  engineers  and  pump-runners  would 
not  be  given  an  eight-hour  shift.  The 
witness  said  he  only  knew  that  when 
the  district  superintendent  protested 
against  the  firemen  striking  for  an 
eight-hour  day  when  they  already  had 
it,  the  firemen  replied  that  they  had 
been  ordered  by  the  union  to  strike. 

The  Wages  Earned. 

At  this  juncture,  in  response  to 
queries  by  Mr.  Darrow,  Superintendent 


158 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Phillips  reiterated  the  statement  that 
an  investigation  of  the  books  of  his 
company  shows  that  the  average  an- 
nual earnings  of  the  contract  miners 
were  no  greater  in  1901  than  they  were 
in  previous  years,  despite  the  fact  that 
they  got  a 10  per  cent,  increase.  Prior 
to  1901,  the  average  daily  earning  of  a 
contract  miner  was  $3.40  a day.  In  1901 
it  was  $3.10.  This  is  accounted  for,  the 
witness  said,  by  the  fact  that  efficiency 
was  decreased  10  per  cent,  or  so  by 
union  restrictions. 

Mr.  Darrow  called  attention  to  a 
statement  of  President  Truesdale  that 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern mine  employes  earned  30  per  cent, 
more  in  1901  than  in  1900,  and  a state- 
ment made  by  the  witness  that  the 
output  per  capita  was  greater  in  1901 
than  in  1900.  The  witness  explained 
that  the  Truesdale  statement  was  for 
all  employes.  The  statement  of  the  wit- 
ness was  limited  to  contract  miners.  As 
to  the  output  per  capita  being  greater, 
the  witness  explained  that  this  was  ac- 
counted for  by  the  great  increase  in 
vashery  output. 


Just  at  the  close  of  Mr.  Phillips’  ex- 
amination, Mr.  Ross,  general  attorney 
for  the  Lackawanna,  asked  a few  ques- 
tions bearing  upon  the  right  to  hire 
and  discharge. 

The  Right  to  Hire  and  Discharge. 

“Mr.  Darrow  has  brought  out  a propo- 
sition that  is  new  in  sociology,”  said 
Mr.  Ross.  “You  said  in  answer  to  his 
question  that  this  right  to  hire  and  dis- 
charge could  be  arbitrated?” 

“Yes,”  replied  the  witness. 

“That  is  something  new,”  said  Mr. 
Ross.  “Heretofore  the  right  to  hire  and 
discharge  has  always  been  considered 
absolute.  You  do  not  wish  your  com- 
pany to  be  bound  by  your  answer,  do 
you?” 

“No,”  said  Mr.  Phillips.  “That  is  my 
personal,  not  my  official  opinion.” 

Subsequently,  Mr.  Ross  said  that  his 
position  was  merely  that  the  head  of  a 
concern  which  employs  ' 20,000  or  25,000 
men  cannot  surrender  the  right  to  hire 
and  discharge,  or  in  general  submit 
such  a question  to  arbitration. 

Dr.  J.  M.  Wainwright  was  re-called 


after  Superintendent  Phillips  left  the 
stand.  He  quoted  from  Oliver’s  “Dan- 
gerous Trades”  to  show  that  mining  is 
not  as  dangerous  a vocation  as  many 
others.  Many  of  the  other  dusty  occu- 
pations, he  said,  were  more  dangerous 
than  mining.  In  answer  to  questions 
by  Major  Warren,  Dr.  Wainwright  said 
that  he  had  been  present  at  autopsies 
performed  on  the  bodies  of  miners  and 
had  observed  the  lung  in  such  cases. 

“Well,  is  it  a fact,”  asked  Major  War- 
ren, “that  the  lungs  sink  if  put  in 
water?” 

"Not  unless  there  has  been  pneu- 
monia,” replied  the  doctor,  “in  which 
case  they  always  sink,  as  would  the 
lungs  of  anyone  else  who  had  had  pneu- 
monia.” 

Auditor  Eaker,  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western,  will  go  on 
the  stand  tomorrow  to  present  the  com- 
pany’s statistical  statements.  It  is  said 
they  contain  some  very  interesting  in- 
formation. 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Jan.  20. 

[ Hrom  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  21. J 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  20. — The  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company 
rested  its  case  today,  after  presenting 
testimony  by  three  of  its  workmen  as 
to  dealings  they  have  had  with  the 
miners’  union,  and  the  testimony  of 
Auditor  A.  S.  Baker  regarding  the  sta- 
tistics prepared  for  the  enlightenment 
of  the  commision. 

John  J.  McAndrew  and  Michael  Mc- 
Hugh, two  hoisting  engineers  in  the 
employ  of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  company,  told  of  the  St. 
David’s  hall  meeting  and  the  unsuc- 
cessful efforts  of  the  Lackawanna  steam 
men  to  have  the  union  take  cognizance 
of  the  fact  that  they  had  no  grievances 
and  out  of  consideration  of  this  revoke 
the  strike  order  as  far  as  it  concerned 
them. 

Samuel  L.  Morgan,  ex-president  of 
the  Mt.  Pleasant  local,  and  a former 
union  organizer,  who  was  expelled  from 
the  union,  as  a result  of  a fight  with 
the  officers  of  District  No.  1,  took  the 
stand  at  the  instance  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company 
and  told  some  interesting  details  of  his 
experiences  with  the  union.  Among  the 
somewhat  sensational  allegations  he 
made  was  that  District  President  Duffy 
organized  and  sent  bodies  of  men  to 
raid  collieries  in  the  Hazleton  district, 
during  the  1900  strike,  and  that  the 
raiders  were  furnished  with  intoxicants 
paid  for  with  money  out  of  the  na- 
tional treasury  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers. 

The  tables  submitted  by  Auditor 
Baker  were  remarkably  thorough  and 
exhaustive.  Taken  in  connection  with 
the  oral  testimony  presented  by  this 
company,  they  tended  to  prove  that  its 


claim  that  its  employes  have  no  ground 
for  grievance  is  fairly  well-founded. 

The  testimony  so  far  offered  by  the 
Temple  company  is  in  the  main  con- 
tradictory of  the  allegations  made 
against  the  company  by  witnesses  for 
the  miners.  Major  Everett  Warren, 
who  conducted  the  Erie  and  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  cases,  is  also 
conducting  the  Temple  company’s  case. 

The-  last  witness  of  the  day  was  the 
four  hundredth  to  be  called.  The  testi- 
mony now  amounts  to  nearly  7,000  pages 
of  350  words  each. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion, Judge  Gray  precipitated  an  inter- 
esting discussion  of  the  question  of  the 
moral  right  of  the  union  in  the  matter 
of  restricting  individual  work  and  dis- 
criminating against  non-union  men.  It 
is  given  in  full  in  the  detailed  report  of 
the  proceedings. 

The  attendance  at  the  sessions  is  fall- 
ing away  perceptibly  since  John  Mitch- 
ell left.  There  were  few  present  today 
outside  of  those  who  are  there  of  neces- 
sity. 

First  Witness  Heard. 

The  first  witness  of  the  day  was  John 
J.  McAndrew,  hoisting  engineer  at  the 
Diamond  colliery  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company. 
Mr.  McAndrew  told  of  the  action  of  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
steam  men  in  reference  to  the  order 
calling  them  out  on  June  2. 

The  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern collieries,  he  explained,  are  grouped 
in  four  districts.  The  steam  men  of  the 
First  district,  of  whom  the  witness  was 
one,  decided  informally  to  refuse  to 
obey  the  order.  The  steam  men  of  Dis- 


tricts No.  2 and  3 called  a meeting  for 
May  2S,  at  St.  David's  hall,  West 
Scranton,  to  consider  the  order.  The 
men  of  the  three  districts  attended.  The 
witness  was  chosen  to  preside  at  the 
meeting.  A resolution  was  unanimously 
adopted  requesting  President  Mitchell 
to  rescind  the  order,  as  it  was  sure  to 
be  made  ineffective,  by  other  men  im- 
mediately taking  their  places. 

President  Mitchell  refused  to  grant 
the  request,  and  the  men  concluded 
they  would  ignore  the  order.  Two- 
thirds  of  the  men  were  members  of  the 
union.  All  of  them  voted  to  stay  at 
work,  and  86  per  cent,  of  them  did  stay 
at  work. 

The  witness  was  opposed  on  principle 
to  going  on  strike,  as  the  steam  men 
would,  by  deserting  their  posts,  endan- 
ger the  mines. 

"Could  not  the  property  be  protected 
with  three  shifts  as  well  as  two?” 
asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

"I  suppose  so,”  said  the  witness,  “but 
if  there  were  three  shifts,  there  would 
be  classification  and  some  engineers 
who  would  be  on  the  night  shift  would 
get  very  small  wages.  As  it  is  now. 
with  shifts  alternating  day  and  night, 
on  weekly  shifts,  each  engineer  gets 
good  pay.” 

The  witness  told  that  he  gets  $TS  a 
month.  A fireman  receives  $56. 

Judge  Gray  had  been  revolving  in  his 
mind  the  answer  of  Mr.  McAndrew  as 
to  the  desirability  of  three  shifts.  “You 
felt,”  said  the  judge,  “as  if  you  wanted 
to  act  on  your  own  opinion  as  to  what 
is  reasonable  and  what  is  not  reason- 
able, in  the  matter  of  hours  and  wages, 
and  not  be  compelled  to  accord  with 


some  one’s  else  opinion  as  to  what  is 
reasonable?” 

The  witness  nodded  his  affirmation  of 
the  judge’s  interpretation  of  his  views. 

Michael  McHugh,  hoisting  engineer  at 
the  Sloan,  told'  of  the  efforts  of  a com- 
mittee from  the  St.  David’s  hall  meet- 
ing to  induce  President  Mitchell  to  re- 
scind the  order,  as  far  as  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  steam 
men  were  concerned. 

The  committee  first  went  to  the  Dis- 
trict No.  1 headquarters  in  Scranton 
and  talked  over  the  matter  with  Presi- 
dent Nicholls,  Secretary  Dempsey  and 
Board  Member  Courtright.  The  com- 
mittee told  the  officials  they  had  no 
grievances  and  did  not  want  to  strike, 
as  they  could  not  afford  to  give  up 
their  jobs.  President  Nicholls  declared 
they  would  have  to  quit.  If  they  did 
not,  he  said,  they  would  be  scoffed  at, 
their  families  ostracized,  and  their  chil- 
dren insulted. 

President  Mitchell  was  next  appealed 
to  at  Wilkes-Barre.  He  said  he  could 
not  grant  their  request.  It  was  too  late, 
he  said,  to  consider  it.  He  produced  a 
list  of  names  of  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  steam  men  and  told  the 
committee  every  one  of  them  had  prom- 
ised to  obey  the  call.  The  witness  as- 
sured Mr.  Mitchell  that  he  had  been 
misled;  that  most  of  the  men  whose 
names  were  on  the  list  would  not  go  on 
strike. 

No  Victory  Without  Sacrifice. 

The  commitee  pled  with  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell that  they  could  not  afford  to  lose 
their  jobs,  and  that  they  surely  would 
lose  them  if  they  went  on  strike,  as 
others  were  ready  to  take  their  places. 
Some  of  them  were  paying  off  debts  in 
real  estate  and  besides  losing  their 
jobs  they  would  lose  their  homes  if 
they  went  on  strike. 

President  Mitchell  remained  obdu- 
rate. There  could  be  no  victory  with- 
out losses,  he  declared.  The  committee 
reported  back  to  the  meeting,  and  it 
was  decided  to  live  up  to  the  resolu- 
tion and  ignore  the  union’s  order. 

Before  June  2 came,  the  committee 
again  saw  members  of  the  district 
board.  The  committee  told  them  there 
would  surely  be  25  per  cent,  of  the 
steam  men  who  would  remain  at  work 
and  that  with  even  25  per  cent,  at 
work  the  company  could  operate.  One 
of  the  district  board  members  said: 
“There  won’t  be  any  25  per  cent,  stay- 
ing at  work.  If  they  do,  we’ll  drag 
them  out.”  The  witness  declined  to 
give  the  name  of  the  official  who  said 
this. 

The  witness  testified  that  as  far  as 
he  was  concerned  he  was  well  satis- 
fied with-  his  job.  He  had  no  fault  to 
find  with  either  hours  or  wages.  He 
never  heard  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  steam  men  complain  of 
their  conditions. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  him  if  it  was  not 
true  that  the  steam  men  of  the  whole 
region  went  into  the  Shamokin  con- 
vention and  asked  that  their  demands 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

for  more  pay  and  shorter  hours  be  in- 
corporated in  the  demands  the  union 
was  about  to  put  out.  The  witness 
had  no  personal  knowledge  of  this. 

Testimony  at  times  bordering  on 
the  sensational  was  given  by  Samuel 
L.  Morgan,  of  Scranton,  a miner  at 
the  Bellevue,  who  was  formerly  presi- 
dent of  the  Mt.  Pleasant  local,  and 
who  was  expelled  from  the  union  by 
action  of  the  Hazleton  convention,  on 
the  ground  that  he  preferred  false 
charges  against  union  officers. 

Charges  Against  Dilcher. 

His  charges  were  in  effect  that  Na- 
tional Organizer  Fred  Dilcher,  tried 
to  get  money  from  W.  P.  Boland,  a 
coal  operator  to  settle  a strike  at  the 
Oxford;  that  District  President  T.  D. 
Nicholls  was  seen  sneaking  into  an 
operator’s  home  by  a back  entrance 
during  the  1900  strike  and  that  District 
Secretary  Dempsey  had  done  some- 
thing else,  which  the  witness  could 
not  remember. 

He  was  asked  to  appear  before  the 
Hazleton  convention  to  prove  his 
charges.  On  Tuesday  a motion  was 
made  that  he  produce  his  proof  by  the 
following  Tuesday  or  be  expelled.  He 
had  just  gone  through  two  strikes  and 
could  not  afford  the  expense  of  taking 
his  twelve  witnesses  from  Scranton  to 
Hazleton  and  consequently  did  not 
prove  the  charges.  President  Mitchell, 
the  witness  said,  told  him  in  the  par- 
lor of  the  St.  Charles  hotel  at  Scranton, 
prior  to  the  convention  that  the  union 
would  stand  the  expense  of  his  wit- 
nesses. At  Hazleton,  Mr.  Mitchell,  the 
witness  said  repudiated  this  agree- 
ment. The  convention  passed  a reso- 
lution expelling  him,  but  the  Mt. 
Pleasant  local  refused  to  obey  the 
resolution. 

The  witness  interested  himself  no 
longer  in  the  union,  and  does  not  know 
his  present  standing.  He  is  of  the 
opinion,  however,  that  he  is  classed  as 
a non-union  man  for  the  reason  that 
since  the  close  of  the  1902  strike  twelve 
different  laborers’  have  been  induced  to 
desert  him.  As  fast  as  he  could  find 
a laborer,  the  union  would  get  them 
away  from  him.  He  is  also  denied  the 
full  quota  of  cars  by  driver  boys,  he 
averred,  because  of  his  being  a non- 
union man.  He  could  easily  load  seven 
or  eight  cars  on  a shift,  but  can  only 
get  four  or  five.  To  load  six  cars,  he 
said,  required  only  from  two  and  one- 
half  to  three  hours. 

Asked  concerning  the  practice  of  the 
union  in  preventing  men  from  working 
on  idle  days,  even  from  cutting  rock 
or  putting  their  places  in  shape,  the 
witness  explained  that  this  was  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  the  company 
from  making  a good  showing  in  the 
matter  of  miners’  earnings.  When  he 
was  in  the  union  he  was  told  that  the 
company  encouraged  men  to  work  on 
idle  days  so  that  it  would  strengthen 
the  average  earnings  on  breaker  days. 

He  has  worked  under  both  the  weight 
and  per-car  systems  of  payment  and 


159 

considers  the  per-car  system  the  more 
fair  and  satisfactory.  When  asked  why 
the  per-car  system  was  preferable  he 
made  the  somewhat  hazy  explanation 
that  by  the  per-car  system,  a miner 
could  be  short  a little  in  his  topping 
and  not  lose  anything  by  it.  Under  the 
weight  system  he  would  be  paid  for 
only  the  actual  coal  sent  out.  Judge 
Gray  took  issue  with  the  witness  as  to 
the  merits  of  his  grounds  for  preference. 

To  emphasize  his  belief  in  the  health- 
fulr.ess  of  the  occupation  of  mining,  the 
witness  told  that  he  took  a job  as 
special  officer  for  the  Delaware,  Lack- 
awanna and  Western  company,  but 
finding  his  health  failing  went  back  into 
the  mines.  He  is  feeling  better  now. 
Even  with  the  union’s  restrictions  he 
can  earn  twice  as  much  wages  cutting 
coal  as  he  could  working  as  a special 
officer  and  he  could  re-double  these 
wages,  he  declared,  if  the  restrictions  of 
the  union  were  removed.  His  average 
earnings  as  a contract  miner,  he  said, 
ate  $3.40  a day,  working  not  more  than 
four  hours. 

Most  Startling  Testimony. 

His  most  startling  testimony  bore 
on  an  allegation  that  money  from  the 
national  treasury  was  used  to  buy  in- 
toxicating drink  for  men  whom  District 
President  Duffy  sent  to  raid  the  col- 
lieries at  Rerringer,  Gowan  and  Fern 
Glen,  during  the  1900  strike. 

The  witness,  at  that  time  was  work- 
ing as  an  organizer  for  the  union  in 
the  Hazleton  district.  President  Duffy 
he  testified,  took  him  into  his  confidence 
and  told  him,  that  raids  were  planned 
cn  the  collieries  at  these  three  places, 
where  the  men  were  refusing  to  join 
the  strikers.  A large  body  of  men  was 
recruited  and  sent  on  the  march  against 
these  places.  National  Organizer  Ben- 
jamin James,  so  the  witness  asserted, 
with  money  from  the  national  treasury, 
paid  the  expenses  of  the  march.  The 
bill  for  food  and  intoxicating  drink,  he 
said,  amounted  to  $43.  The  witness 
averred  he  saw  the  money  paid. 

The  march  was  successful  in  its  pur- 
pose, the  witness  said  in  answer  to  a 
question  by  Commissioner  Watkins. 

Mr.  Darrow’s  first  question  to  the 
witness  on  cross-examination  provoked 
a broad  smile  all  around: 

“Do  you  think  the  union  made  a 
mistake  in  firing  you?”  asked  the  min- 
ers’ attorney  in  the  most  bland  manner 
at  his  command. 

“I’m  proud  of  the  fact  that  I was  not 
a union  man  in  the  last  strike,”  quick- 
ly replied  the  witness. 

“President  Nicholls,  as  I understand 
it,  you  charged  with  secret  dealings 
with  a coal  operator?” 

“He  laid  himself  open  to  suspicion.” 

“You  suspected  him  of  being  a trai- 
tor, I take  it?” 

“Yes.” 

“You  don’t  believe  in  traitors?” 

"No.” 

“At  least,  you  didn’t  at  that  time, 
let  us  say,”  remarked  Mr.  Darrow. 

Mr.  Darrow  wanted  the  names  of  the 


160 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


witnesses  who  were  to  have  been  sum- 
moned to  prove  his  charges.  Mr.  Mor- 
gan declined  to  give  them,  saying,  “I 
don’t  want  them  killed  before  I get 
home.” 

After  some  hesitancy,  the  witness 
said,  “No,”  in  answer  to  a question  as 
to  whether  or  not  he  reported  the  se- 
cret proceedings  of  a convention  at  Ed- 
wardsville  for  a Sunday  paper  at 
Scranton. 

Rights  of  the  Union. 

A significant  and  interesting  discus- 
sion of  the  moral  right  of  a union  to 
restrict  a man’s  labor  and  to  discrimi- 
nate against  non-union  man  took 
place  between  several  of  the  commis- 
sioners, on  the  one  side,  and  Mr.  Dar- 
row  on  the  other;  while  District  Su- 
perintendent Thomas  Williams,  of  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
company’s  West  Scranton  collieries, 
was  on  the  stand. 

Mr.  Williams  had  put  in  evidence  a 
big  batch  of  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  notices,  posted  by  different  lo- 
cals at  different  collieries,  conveying 
announcements  that  "any  man”  not 
showing  a union  card  would  be  "stop- 
ped,” that  the  local  had  decided  to 
celebrate  April  1 as  a holiday  and  all 
employes  should  abstain  from  work, 
and  so  on. 

Superintendent  Williams  was  telling 
of  a non-union  man  being  unable  to 
get  a laborer  to  work  with  him,  when 
the  discussion  was  precipitated. 

By  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.  You  did  not  find  that  the  union  was 
responsible  for  that,  did  you? 

A.  No,  I could  not  say  the  union  was 
responsible,  but  nevertheless  that  man 
could  not  have  a laborer. 

The  Chairman:  Does  the  union  deny 
that  it  issues  orders  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Your  honor  asks  me  to 
reply  without  a moment’s  thought;  I do 
not  know  that  I have  asked  that  question 
myself  specifically  to  find  out,  but  I will 
say  that  I think 

Mr.  Warren:  We  have  positive  evidence 
of  it. 

The  Chairman:  Wait  a moment,  please. 

Idea  of  a Well  Organized  Mine. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I should  think,  In  a wel’ 
organized  mine,  a union  miner  wou  d 
not  work  with  non-union  men. 

The  Chairman:  You  do  not  object  very 
much  to  this  method  of  proof,  then?  You 
do  not  think  that  it  Is  unlikely  that  it 
occurred? 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  they  would  not  dis- 
tribute cars? 

The  Chairman:  Yes. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I do  not  think  they  have 
an  organization  of  that  extent  in  this 
region,  so  far  as  I can  find  out;  but  I do 
think  that  with  a thoroughly  organized 
mine,  or  thoroughly  organized  industry, 
where  they  had  a trade  agreement  which 
called  for  only  union  men 

The  Chairman:  Oh,  yes 

Mr.  Darrow  (continuing):  That  a union 
man  would  not  work  with  non-union  men; 
but  I do  not  think  they  have  done  that. 

The  Chairman,  Do  you  think  where 
they  have  no  trade  agreement,  where  the 
operators  have  not  agreed  to  employ  only 
union  men,  that  there  are  such  orders 
given  by  the  unions,  locals  or  otherwise; 


do  I understand  from  your  side  in  this 
controversy  that  there  are  such  orders 
given? 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  matter  has  never 
been  called  to  my  attention.  I do  not 
know.  I have  no  doubt  but  what  they 
have  a right  to  do  it;  but  still  I have 
not  investigated  it. 

The  Chairman:  Have  a right  to  do 

what,  Mr.  Darrow? 

Mr.  Darrow:  I do  not  know  whether 
they  have  ever  provided  in  any  w«y 
that  a laborer  should  not  work  with  a 
non-union  man;  I do  not  think  they  have. 

The  Chairman:  Or  that  a non-union 
man  should  not  get  cars? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes,  sir;  I do  not  thir  k 
they  have. 

The  Chairman:  We  have  had  a number 
of  instances  where  plane  runners  and 
drivers  have  reported  to  their  bosses  that 
they  have  been  instructed  not  to  furmsh 
cars.  Do  you  believe  they  were  telling 
the  truth,  or  do  you  deny  it?  If  you  deny 
it,  we  wili  call  upon  the  other  side  to 
prove  it — if  you  deny  that  that  could  have 
occurred. 

Mr.  Darrow:  My  only  idea,  to  be  frank 
about  it,  without  having  looked  into  it, 
is  that  there  is  no  general  rule  by  the 
union  in  this  vicinity.  I presume,  how- 
ever, that  there  may  have  been  cases 
where  it  occurred  among  the  large  num- 
ber of  men  who  belong  to  the  union.  I 
would  not  think  it  all  improbable  that 
here  and  there  somebody  should  have  re- 
fused it,  as  some  witnesses  have  said, 
although  I do  not  that  that  is  true.  I 
should  think  it  ought  to  be  proven,  where- 
ever  it  is  alleged. 

The  Chairman:  If  it  is  allowed;  if  it 
is  a thing  you  thing  right  and  justi- 
fiable, why  prove  it? 

Mr.  Darrow:  I prefer  to  answer  that 
after  luncheon.  I think  I can  answer  as 
to  whether  it  is  right.  I think  it  is  right. 
I think  they  have  a right  to  say  that  they 
will  not  work  with  non-union  men. 

The  Chairman:  You  think  they  have  a 
right  to  deny  the  furnishing  of  cars  to 
non-union  men? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes,  to  be  sure;  it  is  the 
foundation  of  trades  unionism. 

The  Chairman:  And  refused  to  work  in 
a mine  where  non-union  men  are  em- 
ployed? 

Mr.  Darrow:  To  be  sure. 

The  Chairman:  I wanted  to  know  your 
position  about  it,  It  would  hardly  be 
necessary,  then,  to  go  into  the  particu- 
larity of  proof. 

Mr.  Darrow:  If  a man  may  not  strike 
and  refuse  to  work  with  a non-union 
man,  then  a trades  union  might  not  be 
able  to  exist.  It  is  the  essence  of  it.  A 
man  may  refuse  to  work  with  a red- 
headed man  if  he  wants  to,  he  may  re- 
fuse to  work  with  a Pole,  or  a Bohe- 
mian, or  a Catholic  or  an  Atheist;  but 
that  is  his  rights.  He  may  believe  in 
unionism,  as  I do;  that  labor  cannot  be 
well  paid  and  cannot  receive  Its  just  re- 
cognition without  a union,  and  he  may 
say,  “I  will  not  work  with  any  one  who 
is  not  a union  man.” 

Rights  of  the  Operators. 

The  Chairman:  Then  the  operator 

would  have  the  right  to  say  that  he  would 
not  employ  a man  who  belonged  to  a 
union? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes. 

The  Chairman:  And  to  protect  men  who 
did  work  from  interference? 

Mr.  Darrow:  There  is  no  question 

about  that;  I do  not  see  how  either  propo- 
sition can  be  disputed. 


Commissioner  Parker:  An  employer  has 
the  right  to  discharge  a man  for  having 
a red-head? 

Mr.  Darrow:  No  doubt,  absolutely, 

whether  it  is  wise  policy  or  not.  That  is 
a question  upon  which  men  may  differ.  1 
think  the  operators  would  be  wise  if  they 
recognized  it.  On  the  other  hand  they 
think  we  would  be  wise  if  we  abandoned 
it. 

Commissioner  Wright:  If  a miner  has 

a right  to  refuse  to  work  with  a red- 
headed man  has  he  also  the  right  to  pre- 
vent the  red-headed  man  from  working? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Do  you  mean  by  force? 

Commissioner  Wright:  Any  way? 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  question  is  indefinite, 
is  it  not?  Not  but  what  I am  willing  to 
answer  any  question. 

Commissioner  Wright:  Admitting  the 

right  of  the  man  to  work  or  not  with  the 
red-headed  man,  has  he  a right  by  any 
means  whatever  to  prevent  the  red-headed 
man  from  working? 

Mr.  Darrow:  A legal  right?  Yes. 

Commissioner  Wright:  We  will  put 

it  union  and  non-union  instead  of  red- 
headed. 

Mr.  Darrow:  He  has  a right  to  use  all 
the  power  he  has  by  way  of  moral  suasion 
to  say  to  every  one  else  "this  man  is  an 
enemy  to  organized  labor,  no  one  should 
work  with  him.” 

Commissioner  Wright:  But  has  no  right 
to  injure  him? 

Mr.  Darrow:  No  right  to  assault  him, 

no  right  to  kill  him. 

Commissioner  Wright:  You  can  assault 
a man  without  striking  him? 

Mr.  Darrow:  He  has  no  right  to  slan- 

der him;  the  civil  law  comes  in  there 
and  says  that  slander  is  an  assault.  He 
has  no  right  even  to  call  him  “scab”  as 
that  is  slander. 

Mr.  Warren:  You  approve  of  that  then? 

Mr.  Darrow:  But  I think  some  of  these 
notices  were  very  inartificial. 

Mr.  Warren:  I am  not  referring  to 

them  on  the  question  of  grammar  or 
etiquette. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Let  me  read  this:  "The 

first  working  day  in  August  will  be  the 
day  to  show  working  cards.  Any  man 
not  having  a card  will  be  stopped  until 
he  gets  one.”  Now,  I am  perfectly'  free 
to  answer  that  question.  This  was  evi- 
dently a notice  addressed  only'  to  union 
men,  evidently  as  a means  of  knowing 
who  in  their  minds  were  members  of  the 
union.  They  had  a perfect  right  to  pass 
a resolution  or  otherwise  calling  for  every 
man  as  he  went  down  into  the  mine  to 
present  his  card,  and  providing  that  he 
could  not  go  down  in  the  mine  if  he  did 
not  have  his  card. 

The  Chairman:  How  would  they  pre- 

vent him  from  going  down? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Then  comes  another  ques- 
tion. I do  not  mean  by  that,  your  honor, 
that  if  he  had  a contract;  that  is,  be- 
tween the  mine-owner  and  the  men.  there 
might  not  be  some  equity',  but  they  have 
a right  as  a matter  of  discipline  to  their 
members  to  say  "You  must  show  your 
card.” 

Power  of  the  Union. 

The  Chairman:  Or  get  out  of  the  union? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes,  by  expulsion.  They 

have  not  worded  it  right;  even  well  edu- 
cated men  do  not  always  make  them- 
selves perfectly'  plain.  They  have  no 
other  power;  the  only’  power  they  have 
over  their  members  is  to  dismiss  them  or 
fine  them,  nothing  else. 

Mr.  Warren:  I want  to  interrupt  y’ou 

long  enough  to  say  that  I cannot  under- 
stand how  you  construe  that  paper,  which 


is  short  and  brief,  in  the  way  you  do. 
You  may  be  right  about  it,  and  I may  be 
wrong,  but  X differ  with  . you  in  the  inter- 
pretation. I say  that  is  a notice  to  every 
employe  in  your  colliery  that  when  he 
conies  to  work  that  morning  he  must 
have  his  card  or  he  will  be  stopped, 
whether  he  be  a union  or  non-union  man, 
hecause  it  was  posted, 

Mr.  Darrow:  I think  you  will  find  when 
the  evidence  is  all  in  that  that  is  not  the 
proper,  construction.  I will  answer  you 
frankly,  if  it  is  the  proper  construction, 
I think  it  is  wrong;  I think  they  "have  no 
right  to  say  to  a non-union  man,  to  pre- 
vent him  from  going  down. 

Mr.  Warren:  You  gentlemen  on  the 

other  side  have  torn  our  books  inside  Out. 
Now  I respectfully  request  you,  as  I did 
a month  ago,  to  furnish  us  with  the  min- 
u;tes  of  the  meetings  in  our  section  of 
your  locals  and  let  us  see  from  those 
minutes  just  what  they  did  undertake  to 
do  both  in  the  matter  of  restricting  the 
men  from  working  and  earning  money 
and  in  the  matter  of  preventing  non-union 
men  from  working. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I will  not  furnish  the  min- 
utes of  the  meetings'  of  the  Locals  any 
more  than  you  would  furnish  the  minutes 
of  your  associates  and  boards  of  direc- 
tors. • 

.Mr.  Warren:  You  say  it  is  not  a secret 
orgnization? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Oh,  well,  there  may  be 

many  things  we  do  not  want  you  to  knovv. 

Mr  Warren:  That  is  what  I am  rath- 

er inclined  to  believe. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I do  not  know  anything 

at, all  about  that,  but  I will  And  out  and 
bring'the  men  in  here  to  find  put  to  whom 
this  notice  applies. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  You  have  one 

notice  which  brings  that  issue  out  clear- 
ly, stating,  I think,  that  union  men  will 
refuse  to  work  with  non-union  men  after 
a certain  date. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  another  proposi- 

tion from'  the  one  that  Mr.  Warren  just 
now  put  to  me.  The  question  he  first 
p.uts  to  me  is — 

.Mr.  Warren:  What  I am  trying  to  do 

is  to  fasten  upon  the  organization,  if  I 
can,  a disposition  to  compel  men  to  go 
into  the  union'  or  not  allow  them  to  work, 
arid  I say  this  does  it  absolutely,  because 
it  says  .“There  will  be'  a special  meeting 
of  the  above  namel  Local  at  . Jane's  hall. 
Archbald  mines,  Saturday  morning  at  11 
o’clock,  and  all  men  employed  . in  and 
around  the  mmes  not  members  of  the 
above-named  Local  are  requested  to  be 
present  and  join.  If  not  they  Will  be 
stopped  from  work  Monday,  April  the  8th, 
1901.“  That  is  the  official  notice  signed 
by  the  president  and  secretary,  with  the 
seal  on  -it. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  There  is  one 

notice  that  states  it  more  clearly  than 
that. 

Mr.  Warden:  They  are  all  very  clear  to 
me.  , _ ■ '• 

Mr:  Darrow:  As  to  this  notice,  it  does 
seem  to  apply  to  non-union  men.  and  so 
fart'aS  it  does,  they  would  have.no  right 
to-- compel  non-union  men.  They  would 
have  a right,  to, say  that,  they  would  not 
work  with  them;'  but  they  would  have 
no  other  right.  .,  I presume  that  is  what 
they  rriearit;  I' do  not’ know. 

Mr.  -Warfen:  You  presume'  that  that 

is"  what  they  meant  When-  -they  say  that 
the  men- will  be' ..stopped  from  work  if 
they  do  not  join  <dt?  > •;-?-  -j;-.  - 

•Mr.  Darrow:  1 have  no  -idea  they  meant 
stopping  them  by  force,-  with  a . club  or 


MIN®  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

otherwise;  I cannot  imagine  such  a thing. 
I would  -be  willing  to  find  out. 

As  to  Discrimination. 

Superintendent  Williams  was  asked 
concerning  the  alleged  discriminations 
against  union  men  at  the  close  of  the 
last  strike.  In  each  case,  he  said,  the 
men  who  were  not  re-employed  were 
refused  work  because  their  places  had 
been  filled.  Every  man  who  asked  for 
re-employment  has  been  re-employed, 
the  witness  declared.  Some  had  to  take 
places  other  than  those  they  formerly 
filled,  but  not  as  much  as  one  man  has 
been  refused  work. 

“Then  these  3,000  idle  men  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell referred  to,  Saturday,  are  not  up  in 
your  district,  Mr.  Williams,”  remarked 
Major  Warren. 

“By  the  way,”  said  the  major,  turn- 
ing to  Mr.  Darrow,  “where  did  you  get 
your  facts  about  those  3,000  men?  We 
would  like  to  know  something  about  it. 
There  ought  to  be  some  proof  to  back 
up  a broad  statement  of  that  charac- 
ter.” 

“I  trust  we  won’t  have  to  put  it  down 
with  Mr.  Baer’s  statement  as  to  vio- 
lence,” replied  Mr.  Darrow,  with  de- 
cidedly cynical  expression. 

The  witness  also  gave  testimony  in 
detail  of  restrictions  on  output  since  the 
coming  of  the  union.  It  was  along  the 
same  general  line  as  that  of  preceding 
witnesses.  One  incident  was  to  the  ef- 
fect that  forty-three  men  were  turned 
back  in  one  day  by  the  union’s  card  in- 
spection committee,  because  they  could 
not  show  their  union  cards. 

Cross-Examination. 

On  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Darrow, 
Mr.  Williams  said  that  the  variation  in 
the  time  worked  by  the  breakers  was 
due  principally  to  the  varying  condi- 
tions of  the  market.  Mr.  Darrow 
brought  out  the  number  of  miners  em- 
ployed at  each  colliery  in  Mr.  Williams’ 
district,  the  number  of  mine  cars  in 
each  mine,  and  what  Mr.  Williams 
thought  to  be  a fair  number  of  cars  to 
be  hoisted  from  each  mine  in  a ten- 
hour  day. 

Mr.  Darrow  then  went  into  the  ques- 
tion of  the  chance  an  engineer  has  to 
rest  while  on  night  shift,  and  drew 
from  Mr.  Williams  the  statement  that 
engineers  were  not  supposed  to  sleep 
while  on  duty,  and  that  if  he  found 
such  an  engineer  asleep  he  would  disci- 
pline him.  Complaints  had  been  made 
by  - foremen  that  enginemen  had  been 
found  asleep,  but  he  had  never  dis- 
charged men  for  that  reason. 

Mr.  Darrow  questioned  the  witness 
about  three  men  who  had  not  been  put 
at  work  since  the  .strike  was  declared 
off,  and  Mr.  Williams  gave  the  names 
of  _the  men  who  now  fill  the  places  of 
the  three  complainants.  Each  of  these 
men  was  put  at  his  present  work  while 
the  strike  was  on. 

Mr.  Williams  said  that  he  had  kept 
track  of  the  time  lost  after  pay  day  at 
the  Archbald  mine,  and  had  found  that, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  men  got 
their  pay  on  Saturday  afternoon,  there 


161 

was  a loss  of  two  or  three  hours  on  the 
following  Monday  morning. 

Michael  McHugh  was  re-called,  and 
testified  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the 
engineers  and  firemen  on  night  shift  to 
sleep  from  two  to  six  hours  each  night. 
He  explained  that  the  work  was  not 
hard  and  that  one  would  look  out  for 
the  duties  of  both  while  the  other  slept. 

Attorney  McCarthy  conducted  the 
cross-examination  and  asked  McHugh 
if  he  meant  to  admit  that  he  had  been 
negligent  in  thus  sleeping  on  duty. 

“Yes,  sir,”  said  McHugh,  without  a 
smile. 

Auditor  Baker’s  Evidence. 

A.  S.  Baker,  auditor  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  mining  de- 
partment, was  the  first  witness  of  the 
afternoon.  He  presented  and  explained 
the  statistics  prepared  for  the  commis- 
sion, showing  details  of  the  matters  of 
hours  and  wages  and  the  like. 

Appended  is  a summary  of  the  sta- 
tistics laid  before  the  commission  by 


Auditor  Baker: 

No.  of  collieries  19 

No.  of  openings  3 * 

No.  of  employes  12,000 

Number  of  days  of  idleness  due 

to  action  of  employes  - 168 

Mitchell  day  and  other  union 

holidays  36 

Circuses  17 

Picnics  and  excursions  18 

Strikes  97 

Number  of  days  of  idleness  due 
to  breakdowns  of  machinery, 

etc  412 

Total  number  of  days  breakers 

started  4,810 

Average  days  colliery  started  up  260 

Average  number  of  10-hour  days  203 

Average  number  of  hours 

worked  per  day  7.8 

Average  number  of  hours 
worked  per  day  by  contract 

miners  6.53 

Average  earnings  of  contract 

miners  $ 628.93 

Average  earnings  of  miners’  la- 
borers   362.72 

Average  earnings  of  company 

men  514.93 

Average  earnings  of  all  men 502.45 

Average  earnings  of  all  boys...  204.10 
Average  earnings  of  all  em- 
ployes   432.63 

Gross  earnings  of  contract 

miners  3.078, 135. G4 

Cost  of  supplies  274.713.49 

Laborers’  earnings  (estimated).  1,025,419.92 
Net  earnings  of  contract 
miners 1,778,002.23 


Statement  showing  number  of  days  on 
which  contract  miners  w’orked  during  the 
year  1901,  and  average  annual  earnings. 


No.  Men 
on  Rolls 

Percent- 

age 

Average  An- 
nual Earnings 

300  days  and  over. . 

5 

,i 

$1024.59 

275  to  300  davs 

296 

8.7 

766.64 

250  to  275  days 

1103 

32.1 

681.47 

225  to  250  days 

501 

14.6 

584.04 

200  to  225  days 

305 

8.9 

51)2.56 

175  to  200  davs 

212 

6.2 

457.69 

150  to  175  days 

164 

4.8 

412.72 

125  to  150  days 

136 

4. 

349.43 

100  to  125  days 

127 

3.4 

259.54 

75  to  100  davs 

146 

4.3 

204.39 

Less  than  75  days 

443 

12.9 

92.77 

3438 

100. 

$509. 6S 

162 


PROCEEDINGS  O-F  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Above  table  shows  that  40  9-10  per  cent, 
of  the  men  worked  over  250  days  with  av- 
erage annual  earnings  of  $700.65.  This 
does  not  mean  ten-hour  days,  but  the 
number  of  days  they  reported  for  work. 

Statement  showing  classification  of  con- 
tract miners’  earnings  during  the  year 
1902,  and  average  days  worked  by  each 
man  based  on  the  number  of  times  each 
man  reported  for  work. 


Annual  Earnings 

No.  Hen 

Average  No. 
Broken  Days 
Worked 

Percent- 

age 

Less  than  $100.00 

269 

26. 

7.8 

$ 100.00  to 

150.00 

119 

45. 

3.5 

150.00  to 

200.00 

145 

77.7 

4.2 

200.00  to 

250.00 

110 

102.3 

3.2 

250.00  to 

300.00 

100 

128.3 

2.8 

300.00  to 

350.00 

125 

149.9 

3.7 

350.00  to 

400.00 

156 

172.5 

4.5 

400.00  to 

450.00 

181 

194.2 

5.2 

450.00  to 

500.00 

219 

212.7 

6.4 

500.00  to 

550.00 

281 

232.2 

8.2 

550.00  to 

600.00 

365 

218.9 

10.6 

600.00  to 

650.00 

373 

227. 

10.9 

650.00  to 

700.00 

315 

258.9 

9.2 

700.00  to 

750.00 

251 

264.8 

7.3 

750.00  to 

800.00 

155 

250.9 

4.5 

800.00  to 

850.00 

83 

263.9 

2.4 

850.00  to 

900.00 

55 

271.4 

1.6 

900.00  to 

950.00 

41 

256.3 

1.2 

950.00  to 

1000.00 

25 

262.1 

0.7 

1000.00  to 

1100.00 

28 

247.8 

0.8 

1100.00  to 

1200.00 

13 

243. 

0.4 

Over 

1200.00 

29 

253.5 

0.9 

3438 

100. 

Statement  of  output  and  dockage,  year 
1901. 


Per- 


Colliery 

flars 

Mined 

Cars 

Docked 

Cars  Paid 
for 

cwtege 
of  Cars 
Docked 

Brisbin  

.136.939 

2,050 

134,888 

.011 

Cayuga  

.119,969 

960 

119.008 

.008 

Diamond  . . . 

.171.122 

1.954 

169,168 

.011 

Storrs  

6.139 

306,051 

.019 

Archbald  . . . 

.172,508 

2,086 

170,422 

.012 

Continental 

.122,162 

2,284 

119,877 

.018 

Hampton  . . . 

. 95.843 

1,294 

94,548 

.014 

Hyde  Park.. 

.136,306 

2,284 

133,482 

.021 

Pyne  

.221,964 

3,897 

218,067 

.017 

Sloan  

.148,392 

2,220 

146,171 

.015 

Bellevue  

.183.065 

4,670 

178,394 

.025 

Dodge  

. 91,313 

3,260 

88.053 

.036 

Hallstead 

. 42,364 

1,236 

41.128 

.029 

Taylor  

.157,668 

4,031 

153.636 

.0:5 

Avondale  .. 

.102,844 

2.946 

99,897 

.028 

Bliss  

.147,956 

7,219 

140.736 

.048 

Pettebone  . . 

.168,435 

2.749 

165,686 

.016 

Woodward 

.213,379 

3,188 

210,191 

.015 

Total  mined 

....2,744,419 

Total  docked  55,011  2-3 

Total  paid  for  2,689,407  1-4 

Percentage  of  cars  docked  2 per  cent. 


Average  earnings  of  company  hands  for 
year  1901. 


Occupations 

Aveiago 

Yearly 

Earnings 

Hoisting  engineer  

85 

Headmen  

414 

61 

Breaker  engineers  

653 

24 

Breaker  oilers  

476 

63 

Car  oilers  

273 

05 

Platemen  

29 

Slate  bosses  

393 

54 

Slate  pickers  

154 

80 

Picker  tenders  

238 

39 

Docking  bosses  

408 

42 

Locomotive  engineers 

629 

74 

Locomotive  helpers  . . . . 

19 

Dumpmen  

55 

Electric  engineer  

597 

12 

Culm  engineers  574  36 

Loaders  and  runners 412  61 

Lip  screen  men  305  63 

Ticket  boys  160  88 

Firemen  595  41 

Ashmen  529  74 

Fuelmen  367.10 

Carpenters  678  69 

Carpenters’  helpers  496  77 

Blacksmiths  732  94 

Blacksmiths’  helpers  500  92 

Machinists  835  36 

Machinists’  helpers  595  22 

Stablemen 549  43 

Teamsters  477  73 

Watchmen  503  06 

Electrician  715  54 

Compresor  engineer  881  64 

Yardmen  660  00 

Yard  laborers  368  92 

Trackmen  454  20 

Drivers  and  runners  253  64 

Planemen  259  54 

Car  repairers  448  80 

Car  runners  247  31 

Boiler  inspector  934  04 

Repairmen  524  14 

Head  and  foot  helpers  369  95 

Wiper  508  86 

Track  helper  408  96 

Chain  hoist  men  328  03 

Tester  394  75 

Culm  dumpmen  167  74 

Breaker  boss  301  64 

Inspectors  418  10 

Miscellaneous  laborers  410  45 


Temple  Iron  Company’s  Case. 

At  3 o’clock  the  case  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  company  was 
concluded  and  Major  Warren  im- 
mediately entered  upon  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  case  of  the  Temple  Iron 
company.  General  Manager  S.  B. 
Thorne  was  present  and  sat  with  Major 
Warren. 

Without  any  formal  opening  address, 
Major  Warren,  proceded  to  present  tes- 
timony to  refute  the  statements  of  min-’ 
ers’  witnesses  tending  to  place  the 
place  the  Temple  company  in  a bad 
light. 

One  of  the  witnesses  for  the  miners 
at  the  Scranton  session  was  P.  J. 
Rogan,  a former  employe  of  the  Ster- 
rick  Creek  colliery  at  Peckville,  who 
is  now  keeping  a hotel.  He  testified 
that  one  of  the  cars  used  at  the  Ster- 
rick  Creek,  which  he  personally  meas- 
ured, had  a water-level  capacity  of  86 
cubic  feet. 

James  McAndrew,  assistant  inside 
foreman  at  the  Sterrick  Creek  took  the 
stand,  as  the  first  witness  for  the  Tem- 
ple company  and  testified  that  the 
largest  car  at  the  Sterrick  Creek  con- 
tains only  70  1-S  cubic  feet.  The  other 
sizes  of  cars  measures,  respectively, 
66  1-5  and  68  3-4  cubic  feet.  The 
measurements  were  made  by  the  wit- 
ness January  13,  in  the  presence  of  the 
check  docking  boss,  and  four  other  em- 
ployes all  union  men.  It  is  easier,  the 
witness  said,  to  load  the  big  car  jn 
the  Dunmore  vein,  where  it  is  used 
exclusively,  than  it  is  to  load  the  smal- 
lest car  in  the  Grassy  Island  or  other 
veins.  A uniform  price  of  98  cents  a 
car  is  paid  contract  miners. 

In  telling  that  miners  do  not  work 
more  than  six  and  one-half  hours  on 
an  average,  the  witness  stated  that  P. 


J.  Rogan,  the  witness  above  referred  to 
did  work  as  a mason  during  the  time 
he  was  employed  as  a contract  miner 
at  the  Sterrick  Creek.  He  would  work 
in  the  early  morning  in  the  mines  and 
put  in  the  rest  of  the  day  building 
walls. 

William  Berkheiser,  foreman  at  the 
Lackawanna  colliery  contradicted  the 
testimony  of  Peter  McDonald,  a one- 
armed  man,  who  was  refused  re-em- 
ployment and  who  alleged  he  was  un- 
justly discriminated  against. 

Superintendent  Berkheiser  explained 
that  Mr.  McDonald  had  a position 
which  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to 
fill,  and  when  he  did  not  report  for 
work  with  the  others  the  day  of  the 
resumption,  another  man  was  hired  in 
his  place.  He  came  around  at  3 o’clock 
in  the  afternoon  and  finding  his  place 
filled  went  away.  He  was  never  told 
by  the  superintendent  that  he  (the 
superintendent)  had  reasons  he  would 
give  for  not  re-employing  him. 

A witness  for  the  miners,  a man 
named  Ridgeway  who  was  at  one  time 
docking  boss  at  the  Mt.  Lookout,  testi- 
fied, at  the  Scranton  session,  that  he 
had  received  instructions  from  the  com- 
pany to  dock  ten  per  cent  and  obeyed 
the  instructions. 

Foreman  Gray’s  Testimony. 

Outside  Foreman  Geary  Gray  was 
called  by  Major  Warren  to  contradict 
this  statement.  Foreman  Gray  present- 
ed a tabulated  statement  showing  that 
the  highest  dockage  at  this  colliery 
was  five  per  cent.  In  1901  it  was  1 7-10 
per  cent,  and  in  1902,  two  per  cent.  The 
witness  also  told  that  the  grievance 
committee  of  the  Mt.  Lookout  local  told 
him  they  investigated  the  docking  and 
found  it  to  be  fair  and  just. 

The  company  does  not  dock  for  less 
than  500  pounds  of  impurities,  the  wit- 
ness said.  The  average  weight  of  im- 
purities in  the  cars  tested  at  the  col- 
liery "court  house,”  is  818  pounds. 
Sometimes  there  are  as  high  as  1,650 
pounds  of  impurities  in  a car  of  5,500 
pounds  capacity.  Other  cars  from  the 
same  vein,  sent  out  by  careful  miners, 
contain  not  over  150  pounds  of  im- 
purities. 

The  witness  was  at  one  time  a hoist- 
ing engineer.  It  was  possible,  he  said, 
for  an  engineer  on  the  night  shift  to 
sleep  a good  part  of  the  time  with  per- 
fect safety  to  himself,  the  other  men 
and  the  property.  He  told  that  he  once 
slept  ten  out  of  twelve  hours. 

Once,  in  1901,  at  the  Harry  E.  col- 
liery, the  witness  said,  a driver  boss 
discharged  two  boys  who  refused  to 
deliver  cars  to  two  miners  who  did  not 
have  union  cards.  All  the  ' employes 
went  on  strike  and  remained  on  strik- 
a week. 

Abednego  Reese,  mine  foreman  at  th* 
Forty  Fort  colliery,  told  that  in  19C1 
the  union  demanded  the  discharge  of  a 
carpenter  named  Robinson,  who  re- 
fused to  join  the  union.  They  stayed 
out  a week.  On  Saturday  a notice  was 
pos-ted  at  the  mines,  reading  as  fol- 


lows:  “This  colliery  will  resume  oper- 

ations next  Monday  morning-.  By  or- 
der of  the  Forty  Fort  local,  U.  M.  W. 
of  A.”  The  men  reported  Monday 
morning,  but  the  company  had  taken  a 
notion  in  its  head  to  disregard  the  no- 
tice, and  the  mine  did  not  open  up  until 
a week  later.  This  time  the  company 
put  up  the  notice  fixing  the  day  the 
colliery  would  resume.  In  the  interim, 
Robinson  quit  of  his  own  accord  and 
secured  work  elsewhere.  His  wife 
urged  him  to  quit  because  she  con- 
stantly feared  harm  would  befall  him 
if  he  remained  at  the  mine. 

Prior  to  1900,  the  witness  said,  the 
men  sent  out  seven  cars  a day.  Since 
1900  they  send  out  not  more  than  six. 
The  contract  miners  positively  refuse 
now  to  do  any  work  on  days  when 
the  breaker  is  idle. 

An  incident  to  illustrate  the  alleged 
restriction  of  output  by  the  union  was 
related  by  the  witness. 

David  Baker,  a union  miner,  who 
worked  single-handed,  had  a large 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

quantity  of  coal  blown  down  and  was 
loading  his  second  car  early  in  the 
morning,  when  the  superintendent  hap- 
pened along  and  suggested  to  him  that 
he  ought  10  be  able  to  send  out  four 
cars  that  day. 

“No  siree,”  said  the  miner.  “My  re- 
putation in  the  union  is  bad  enough 
now,  and  it  would  be  worse  if  I sent 
out  more  than  three  cars  single- 
handed.” 

The  miners  can’t  be  induced  to  send 
out  more  than  six  cars  double  or  three 
cars  single-handed,  the  witness  averred. 

The  attention  of  the  witness  was 
called  to  the  testimony  of  a miner 
named  Evans,  from  his  colliery,  who 
testified  in  Scranton  on  behalf  of  the 
miners,  that  he  was  unable  to  make 
anything  like  living  wages.  Foreman 
Reese  took  some  memoranda  from  his 
pocket  and  carpocket  and  read  from  it 
that  in  December  last,  when  every 
miner  was  supposed  to  work  to  his 
fullest  capacity,  Evans  worked  only 
ten  and  one-half  days  out  of  a possible 
twenty-four. 


163 

On  Cross-Examination. 

On  cross-examination,  Attorney  Mc- 
Carthy secured  an  admission  from  the 
witness  that  a number  of  men  who 
were  on  strike  at  the  Maltby  colliery 
of  the  Lehigh  Valley  company  and  who 
secured  work  at  the  Forty  Fort  col- 
liery, were  discharged  in  a body,  a few 
weeks  after  they  began  work. 

Mr.  McCarthy  held  this  up  as  an  ex- 
ample of  the  workings  of  the  “despica- 
ble blacklist.” 

Gilbert  Jones,  assistant  superintend- 
ent at  the  Forty  Fort  colliery  was  on 
the  stand  at  adjourning  time.  He  was 
called  just  a few  minutes  before  the 
hour  for  adjournment  arrived. 

General  Wilson  announced  that  Mr. 
Jones  was  the  four  hundredth  witness 
to  be  heard  by  the  commission.  A 
glance  over  the  general’s  tally  list 
showed  that  the  miner’s  called  155;  the 
non-union  men,  174;  the  commissioners, 
8,  and  the  operators,  63.  This  last  fig- 
ure will  be  very  materially  increased 
before  the  operators  conclude. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Jan.  21. 

[From  Tine  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan  22.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  21. — There  is  only 
one  question  the  mine  strike  commis- 
sion is  at  sea  upon,  and  that  is  whether 
or  not  payment  by  the  car  basis  should 
be  done  away  with. 

The  miners  demand  payment  by 
weight  where  practicable,  which  means 
the  adoption  of  the  weighing  system 
in  all  except  the  mines  of  the  south- 
ern field,  where  the  veins  pitch,  gen- 
erally, to  such  a degree  as  to  make  it 
necessary  to  send  out  all  material 
mined  and  regulate  wages  by  yardage. 

At  this  morning's  session  of  the  com- 
mission it  was  practically  admitted  by 
the  commission  and  attorneys  on  both 
sides  that  this  is  the  one  question, 
more  than  all  others,  which  requires 
particular  consideration.  The  commis- 
sion went  so  far  as  to  say,  through 
Chairman  Gray,  that  it  intended  to  set 
aside  a day  at  the  close  of  the  hearings 
for  the  consideration  of  this  matter  ex- 
clusively. 

The  primal  objection  made  by  the 
companies  having  the  per  car  system 
to  a change  to  the  weighing  system 
is  that  it  would  entail  a great  ex- 
pense. Many  of  the  breakers  would 
have  to  be  entirely  rebuilt  to  permit 
the  installation  of  a weighing  plant. 
Superintendent  Phillips,  of  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  ana  Western  com- 
pany ,asid  that  in  some  instances  the 
change  would  call  for  an  expenditure 
of  $125,000. 

A secondary  objection  on  the  part 
of  the  companies  is  that  a change  in 
the  system  of  measurement  would 
mean  a readjustment  of  wages,  and  a 
readjustment  of  wages  always  means 
an  increase  for  the  employes.  It  is 
even  charged  openly  by  the  companies 


that  the  miners  want  the  change  sole- 
ly for  the  opportunity  it  affords  to  se- 
cure this  readjustment  and  its  inevit- 
abel  increase. 

Darrow’s  Suggestions. 

Mr.  Darrow  brought  up  the  matter 
as  the  morning  session  was  drawing  to 
a close,  by  suggesting  that  each  side 
should  give  particular  attention  to  and 
present  arguments  for  and  against  the 
plan  of  payment  by  weight  outlined  by 
J.  C.  Haddock,  the  independent  opera- 
tor who  went  on  the  stand  for  the 
miners  at  the  Scranton  cessions.  This 
plan,  briefly  stated,  is  to  weigh  the 
coal  after  it  has  gone  through  the 
breaker  and  stands  in  the  railroad  cars, 
and  pro  rate  the  excess  or  lack  back 
on  the  miners,  according  to  the  number 
of  cars  they  send  out.  A company 
docking  boss  and  check  docking  boss, 
hired  by  the  men,  could  see  to  it  that 
the  miner  who  sends  out  clean  coal 
would  not  suffer  for  the  miner  who 
sends  out  dirty  coal.  A miner  who 
sends  out  a clean  car  would  be  credited 
with  a full  car.  One  who  sends  out  a 
car  containing  more  than  a certain  rea- 
sonable amount  of  impurities  would  be 
credited  only1  with  three-quarters  of  a 
car,  or  some  such  proportion.  Reason- 
able agreements  could  be  made  on  the 
sizes  of  coal  to  enter  into  the  calcu- 
lations, and  allowances  granted  for  coal 
used  in  and  about  the  colliery  for 
steam  purposes.  Coal  sold  at  retail 
could  be  separately  weighed  and  ac- 
counted fcr. 

This,  Mr.  Darrow  explained,  would 
remove  the  objection  about  the  expense 
of  making  the  change  from  the  per  car 
to  the  weighing  system.  He  was  not 


thoroughly  satisfied  the  suggestion  rvas 
a practical  one,  but  he  would  like  to 
have  it  given  special  consideration.  If 
any  one  had  any  objections  to  offer  to 
it,  he  would  like  to  hear  them.  If 
there  was  any  way  of  improving  on  the 
plan,  that  also  ought  to  be  put  for- 
ward. 

The  suggestion,  he  said,  first  came  to 
him  from  General  Counsel  David  Will- 
cox,  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  com- 
pany. Later  it  was  presented  by  Mr. 
Haddock.  Mr.  Darrow  had  not  had  op- 
portunity to  go  into  any  extended 
study  of  the  proposition  and  did  not 
even  know  that  it  would  be  favored  by 
his  clients.  Nevertheless,  he  w'as  fa- 
vorably impressed  with  it.  and  would 
like  to  have  it  thoroughly  discussed. 
It  surely,  he  said,  had  this  virtue,  that 
the  companies  would  not  market  more 
coal  than  the  miners  were  paid  for  min- 
ing, and  the  miners,  on  the  other  hand, 
would  not  be  paid  for  more  coal  than 
the  company  sold. 

Radical  Change. 

Major  Warren  said  that  Mr.  Darrow 
should  have  discussed  this  matter 
when  Superintendent  Phillips,  of  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
company,  w'as  on  the  stand.  The  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  com- 
pany', the  major  said,  has  never  had 
any'  complaint  from  its  miners  against 
the  per  car  system,  and,  as  far  as  the 
company  is  concerned,  it  does  not  want 
to  be  put  to  the  expense  and  trouble 
of  such  a radical  change  of  system  In 
payment.  There  were  objections  to  the 
change  on  various  grounds,  he  went  on 
to  say,  and  w'ould  be  pleased  to  recall 
Superintendent  Phillips,  if  Mr.  Darrovv 


164 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


wished  to  learn  from  him  what  these 
objections  are. 

Judge  Gray  said  that  some  such  plan 
as  that  suggested  by  Mr.  Darrow  had 
been  outlined  by  the  commissison,  and 
it  would  like  to  get  all  the  information 
possible  bearing  on  its  feasibility.  The 
commission,  he  said,  was  intending  to 
set  aside  a day  specially,  at  the  close 
of  the  hearings,  for  the  consideration 
of  this  cne  matter. 

Mr.  Darrow  said  he  hoped  the  com- 
mission would  do  this,  and  that,  instead 
of  hearing  witnesses  on  the  matter,  it 
would  be  considered  in  a sort  of  open 
congress. 

Question  of  Weighing  Coal. 

At  the  afternoon  session,  the  matter 
of  weighing  coal  was  again  brought  up 
by  Mr.  Darrow.  He  called  attention  to 
the  Pennsylvania  statute  presented  by 
Attorney  Murphy  at  the  Scranton  ses- 
sion, which  provides  that  the  men  must 
be  paid  by  weight  if  they  demand  it. 

Mr.  Gowen  said,  as  he  viewed  it,  the 
miners  had  waived  this  right  by  their 
submission  to  the  commission  of  the 
question  of  whether  or  not  coal  should 
be  weighed. 

Mr.  Darrow  would  not  agree  to  this 
being  a proper  statement  of  the  case. 
Either  party,  Mr.  Darrow'  contended, 
has  a right  to  insist  on  his  legal  rights, 
no  matter  what  the  commission’s  find- 
ings may  be.  This  right  can’t  be 
Waived,  he  argued,  any  more  than  can 
a man's  right  to  protection  against  as- 
sault and  battery. 

I.  H.  Burns,  of  counsel  for  the  in- 
dependent operators  of  the  Lacka- 
wanna and  Wyoming  regions,  said 
thht  the  action  of  the  men  in  working 
under  the  per-car  system  was  treated 
as  a waiver  of  this  right.  At  all 
events,  he  said,  the  statute  provides 
practically  nothing  more  than  that  the 
weighing  of  coal  shall  be  the  basis  of 
payment,  if  such  a plan  shall  be  agreed 
upon  mutually  between  the  company 
and  the  men. 

"Yes,”  said  Judge  Gray,  "but  Mr. 
Darrow's  contention  is  that  the  de- 
mand now  made  negatives  the  waiver. 
It  would  seem  that  the  statute  can  only 
be  waived  by  a contract  agreement.” 

"But,  after  all,”  rejoined  Mr.  Burns, 
it  comes  down  to  mutual  consent  to 
have  the  statute  enforced.  The  em- 
ployer could  say  he  W'ould  not  employ 
any  except  those  who  w'ould  agree  to 
waive  the  statute.” 

When  General  Manager  S.  D.  Warri- 
ner,  of  the  Lehigh  Valley  Coal  com- 
pany, was  on  the  stand  in  the  after- 
noon, Judge  Gray  asked  him  his  opin- 
ion on  the  yardage  system  of  payment 
for  the  whole  region. 

Yardage  System  Practicable. 

Mr.  Warriner  said  he  thought  it  en- 
tirely practicable.  It  is  now'  in  opera- 
tion in  his  company's  collieries  in  the 
Lehigh  and  Schuylkill  regions.  The 
change  was  made  there  from  the  per- 
car  to  the  yardage  system  with  in- 


creased satisfaction  to  both  the  men 
and  the  company. 

Jt  is  not  by  cubic  yard  the  men  are 
paid,  Mr.  Warriner  explained.  It  is 
by  the  lineal  yard.  The  chamber  is 
driven  twenty-four  feet  wTide.  The 
miner  is  paid  so  much  a yard.  At  the 
end  of  the  period  a pay  day  covers,  he 
can  square  up  the  face  of  his  chamber 
and  find  out  to  the  inch  how  much 
coal  he  cut  and  to  the  penny  how 
much  money  he  earned. 

The  price  varies,  according  to  the 
size  and  hardness  of  a vein,  but  the 
price  is  fixed  before  the  chamber  is 
opened. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  witness,  given 
in  response  to  inquiries  from  Commis- 
sioners Gray,  Watkins  and  Parker,  the 
adoption  of  the  yardage  system  in  the 
upper  regions  would  eliminate  most  ot 
tile  sources  of  dissatisfaction  now  ex- 
isting. 

The  yardage  system  also  tends  to 
maintain  full-sized  pillars.  If  any- 
thing, instead  of  cutting  into  the  pil- 
lars, the  miner  has  a tendency,  under 
the  yardage  system,  to  narrow'  his 
chamber,  and  thereby  leave  a w'ider 
pillar. 

In  level  veins,  where  the  refuse  can 
be  "gobbed,”  the  fact  that  there  is 
equal  compensation  for  coal  and  rock, 
avoids  the  inducement  to  the  miner  to 
load  refuse  in  his  car.  Under  the 
yardage  system,  there  is  absolutely  no 
inducement  to  a miner  to  put  any- 
thing except  pure  coal  in  the  car,  and, 
as  a consequence,  there  is  an  economy 
to  the  company  in  the  preparation  of 
the  coal.  There  is  also  no  chance  for 
dispute  betw'een  the  miner  and  the  la- 
borer. because  the  company  can  hire 
the  laborers  and  pay  them  by  the  day. 
The  yardage  system,  the  witness  fur- 
ther said,  permits  of  the  working  ot 
thin  or  dirty  veins  which  could  not  be 
worked  by  contract  w'ith  any  degree  of 
success. 

Judge  Gray  evinced  especial  interest 
in  Mr.  Warriner’s  statements,  and  at 
the  conclusion  of  his  treatment  of  the 
yardage  question,  asked  him  to  give  the 
matter  further  thought  and  let  thd 
loinmission  have  the  benefit  of  his  con- 
clusions. 

When  the  per-car  system  of  payment 
v as  up  for  discussion,  Judge  Gray 
asked  Mr.  Warriner  if  it  would  not  be 
possible  to  adopt  a standard  car  for 
the  regions  where  this  system  of  pay- 
ment obtained.  The  witness  said  this 
was  impracticable,  because  of  the 
varying  conditions  of  the  veins.  It  is 
essentia)  to  economy  in  transportation 
that  the  car  shall  be  as  large  as  possi- 
ble. Some  veins  will  not  permit  of  a 
car  which  will  easily  enter  other  veins. 
The  cubical  contents  can  not  be  made 
uniform,  b- cause  a car  in  a low  vein, 
to  equal  the  capacity  of  a car  in  a 
high  vein  w culd  have  to  be  made  so 
long  that  it  could  not  be  taken  up 
the  shaft.  The  witness  was  positive  a 
standard  cat,  either  in  lineal  or  solid 
measure  was  impracticable. 


Gelbert  Jones,  assistant  mine  super- 
intendent at  the  Forty  Fort  colliery, 
of  the  Temple  Iron  company,  who  was 
on  the  stand  at  adjournment,  yester- 
day, was  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row at  the  opening  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion. 

Like  the  preceding  witness,  Abednego 
Reese,  foreman  at  Forty  Fort,  Mr. 
Jones  denied  the  existence  of  a black- 
list among  the  companies,  but  admitted 
the  truth  of  the  claim  that  fifty  strikers 
from  the  Maltby,  who  secured  tempor- 
ary employment  at  the  Forty  Fort, 
w'ere  discharged  in  a body  after  they 
W'ere  at  work  for  a week  or  so.  The 
witness  explained  that  he  had  been 
ordered  not  to  employ  them  as  con- 
tract miners.  The  men  were  discharged 
he  declared  because  they  had  mis- 
represented themselves  in  applying  for 
work.  After  a few  days  all  of  them 
w'ere  reinstated  and  alowed  to  continue 
at  w'ork  as  long  as  they  pleased. 

Auditor  George  L.  Houser  was  the 
last  of  the  Temple  company  witnesses. 
Because  of  the  fact  that  the  company 
has  no  record  of  the  number  of  labor- 
ers and  nothing  to  do  with  their  pay- 
ment, it  made  no  attempt  to  give  any- 
thing more  than  the  actual  annual 
earnings  of  each  contractor.  The  799 
company  hands  made  an  average  of 
$1.60  a day. 

The  Lehigh  Valley  Coal  company's 
case  was  next  taken  up.  It  was  open- 
ed up  without  any  formal  address  by 
Franklin  I.  Gowan,  of  Philadelphia. 
The  first  wutness  was  Fred  M.  Chase, 
of  Wilkes-Barre,  chief  accountant.  He 
outlined  and  explained  the  statistics 
prepared  for  the  commission. 

The  figures  covered  a period  of  one 
year,  ending  Nov.  30,  1901.  The  first 
table  showed  the  actual  earnings  of 
contract  miners,  grouped  in  four 
classes.  The  computation  includes  the 
pay  of  every  miner  whose  name  ap- 
pears even  once  on  the  pay  roll  for 
each  month  of  the  year. 

CONTRACT  MINERS. 

Average 

Sent  out  coal.  No.  of  men.  nay. 

250  days  or  over  350  $639  IS 

225  to  250  days  257  579  02 

200  to  225  days  1S4  517384 

Less  than  200  days  132  42$  85 

The  four  classes  represent  thirty-five 
to  forty  per  cent,  of  all  the  contract 
miners  appearing  on  the  pay  roll.  No 
one  was  included  in  any  of  the  tables 
who  did  not  work  at  least  one  day  in 
each  month  of  the  year.  On  the  other 
hand  a miner  would  be  included  if  he 
only  sent  out  one  car  a month  and  a 
company  hand  would  be  included  if 
he  reported  for  work  only  one  day  a 
month.  The  Maltby  colliery  which  was 
on  strike  several  months  was  not  taken 
into  the  calculation  at  all.  The  com- 
pany pays  its  miners’  laborers  direct, 
so  is  in  a position  to  tell  exactly  what 
the  miners  earn.  No  statement  was 
filed  regarding  miners’  laborers. 

The  inside  company  hands  number 
1,077.  They  worked  an  average  num- 
ber of  269  days  and  earned  an  average 


wage  of  $509.05.  Driver  bosses,  fire 
bosses  and  engineers  are  included,  but 
foremen  and  the  like  excluded. 

The  outside  company  hands  number 
1,236  exclusive  of  slate  pickers.  They 
worked  290  days  on  an  average,  and 
earned  an  average  wage  of  $503.24.  The 
260  slate  pickers  worked  252  days,  aver- 
age, and  earned  an  average  pay  of 
$186.75. 

The  average  breaker  time  of  all  of 
the  eight  collieries  based  on  300  ten 
hour  days  was  70  99-100  per  cent,  or 
less  than  an  average  of  eight  hours  a 
dav. 

The  dockage  in  the  Wyoming  region 
was  3 41-100  per  cent.;  in  the  Lehigh 
region  1 97-100  per  cent.;  Mahonoy  re- 
gion, 71-100  per  cent,  and  at  Centralia 
no  dockage  at  all.  The  per  centage 
varies,  the  witness  explained  because 
in  the  Wyoming  region  the  bargain  is 
for  clean  coal.  In  the  lower  region 
there  are  slanting  veins,  and  the  rock 
has  to  be  sent  up  with  the  coal. 

To  prove  that  the  dockage  was  not 
excessive,  a table  was  presented  show- 
ing that  the  “court  house”  tests  dis- 
close impurities,  averaging  about  12  per 
cent,  for  all  the  collieries. 

Commissioner  Clark  asked  if  it  wasn’t 
true  that  the  cars  selected  for  the 
“court  house,”  were  as  a rule  cars  sent 
out  by  miners  who  are  in  the  habit  of 
sending  out  dirty  coal.  The  witness 
did  not  know  as  to  this. 

On  cross-examination  Mr.  Darrow 
developed  the  fact  that  the  company's 
statistics  only  took  into  account  about 
40  per  cent,  of  the  employes. 

Bishop  Spalding  asked  why  it  was 
that  no  figures  were  given  for  laborers 
when  the  company  pays  them  direct. 
The  witness  answered  that  most  of  the 
laborers  are  foreigners,  they  often  work 
for  different  miners  in  the  one  month, 
and  their  names  are  never  the  same 
when  sent  in  by  different  miners.  For 
this  reason  it  was  an  absolute  impossi- 
bility to  follow  any  considerable  num- 
ber of  them  on  the  books  for  any  con- 
siderable period. 

Where  Miner  Earned  $60. 

When  the  commissioners  were  making 
their  tour  through  the  coal  fields,  they 
were  wont  to  question  mine  workers 
encountered  at  the  different  collieries 
they  visited.  At  the  Dorrance  colliery 
of  the  Lehigh  Valley  Coal  company 
they  met  and  talked  with  John  F.  Mur- 
ray, president  of  the  Dorrance  local  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers,  and  he  told 
them,  among  other  things,  that  a miner 
at  that  place  earned  about  $60  a month, 
working  three-quarters  time.  The  news- 
paper men  who  were  accompanying  the 
commission  reported  the  conversation, 
and  Mr.  Murray  was,  as  a consequence, 
in  bad  odor  among  his  neighbors. 

The  Lehigh  Valley  company  put  Mr. 
Murray  on  the  stand  this  morning  to 
have  him  tell  that,  because  he  told  the 
commission  the  truth  about  conditions 
at  the  Dorrance,  he  was  hung  in  effigy 
and  denied  re-election  as  president  of 
the  local. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

Mr.  Murray  was  somewhat  of  a dis- 
appointment. He  admitted  that  he  had 
heard  that  his  name  was  written  on  a 
fence  with  a superscription  to  the  effect 
that  “$60  Murray  is  no  good,”  and  that 
some  one  had  alleged  he  must  have  re- 
ceived a good  sum  of  money  from  the 
Lehigh  Valley  company  to  tell  the  com- 
missioners what  he  did.  He  denied, 
however,  that  he  was  refused  re-elec- 
tion to  the  presidency  of  the  local  on 
this  account. 

He  brought  up  the  bribery  allegation 
at  a meeting  of  the  local  and  demanded 
an  investigation.  He  was  acquitted.  He 
then  tendered  his  resignation,  but  the 
local  refused  to  accept  it.  At  the  elec- 
tion in  January  he  refused  to  stand  for 
another  term,  and  another  man  was 
elected  president. 

Speaking  of  the  visit  of  the  commis- 
sion to  the  Dorrance  mine,  the  witness 
said,  addressing  the  commission:  "You 

were  brought  into  the  best  place  in  the 
mine.”  He  said,  further,  that  he  works 
from  nine  to  ten  hours  a day,  some- 
times, and  that  even  though  he  should 
get  through  work  in  six  or  eight  hours, 
he  would  have  to  lay  around  the  foot 
of  the  shaft  a couple  of  hours,  to  be 
hoisted  to  the  surface. 

He  worked  too  long  and  too  hard,  he 
was  sure.  To  carry  around  the  big 
safety  lamp  which  has  to  be  used  in 
this  mine,  because  of  its  gaseous  na- 
ture, was  a day’s  work  in  itself,  the 
witness  declared. 

Short  of  Cars. 

He  asserted  positively  that  the  miners 
do  not  get  as  many  cars  as  they  can 
and  are  willing  to  load.  The  shift  is, 
five  cars.  His  average  was  between 
three  and  four.  If  the  company  would 
give  him  six  cars,  he  said,  he  would  see 
to  it  that  they  were  loaded,  even  if  he 
had  to  stay  in  until  12  o’clock  at  night 
to  help  his  laborer. 

His  dockage,  he  said,  was  very  light, 
because  he  was  in  an  exceptionally 
good  place. 

“I  believe  nothing  will  satisfy  the 
miners  except  the  weighing  of  coal,” 
said  the  witness  in  answer  to  a query 
by  Mr.  Darrow.  “As  long  as  the  coal 
is  not  weighed  there  will  be  trouble  in 
the  anthracite  fields.  The  cars  we  now 
load  are  more  like  freight  cars  than 
anything  else.  They  are  supposed  to 
contain  two  and  a.  half  tons,  but  I 
understand  that  with  the  topping  they 
hold  over  four  tons.  I get  $1.08  a car 
now.  If  I was  paid  by  weight,  I believe 
I would  make  at  least  $2  a car.” 

In  answer  to  a question  by  Mr. 
Gowan,  the  witness  admitted  that  his 
knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  car 
was  based  on  hearsay  and  guesswork, 
and  that  the  size  of  the  car  has  not  in- 
creased any  in  the  ten  years  he  has 
worked  at  theDorrance. 

“If  you  prefer  to  be  paid  by  weight, 
why  do  you  not  go  to  some  place  where 
the  weight  system  is  in  vogue?”  asked 
Mr.  Gowan. 

“Well,  because  I have  my  home  in 
Wilkes-Barre  and  I don’t  want  to  leave 
it,”  replied  the  witness, 


165 

Supt.  Warriner’s  Testimony. 

General  Superintendent  S.  D.  Warri- 
ner,  of  the  Lehigh  Valley  company, 
gave  considerable  general  testimony  in 
addition  to  that  relating  to  the  relative 
merit  of  the  different  payment  systems. 

Regarding  the  eight-hour  day,  he 
said,  that  with  eight  hours  as  a mini- 
mum, the  men  would  not  work  on  an 
average  more  than  six  or  seven  hours, 
for  the  same  reason  that  with  a ten- 
hour  day  they  now  work  only  eight 
hours  on  an  average. 

It  is  simply  impossible,  he  said,  to  op- 
erate a colliery  without  breakdowns 
and  similar  causes  for  delays. 

The  result  of  an  eight-hour  day  would 
be  that  the  companies  would  have  to 
employ  more  men,  and  in  dull  times 
there  would  be  great  idleness.  There  is 
also  a great  possibility  of  more  open- 
ings and  breakers  being  necessary. 

On  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Darrow, 
the  witness  said  he  had  no  opinion  to 
express  as  to  whether  or  not  an  eight- 
hour  day  intensifies  labor. 

Regarding  the  alleged  blacklist  of 
the  Maltby,  Mr.  Warriner,  admitted 
that  in  a conversation  with  the  gen- 
eral superintendent  of  the  Temple  com- 
pany, he  incidentally  remarked  that  the 
action  of  the  Temple  company  in  hiring 
the  Maltby  strikers  had  a tendency  to 
encourage  the  boycotting  of  a colliery 
such  as  was  then  being  indulged  in. 
Shortly  afterwards,  the  sixteen  or  eigh- 
teen Maltby  men  were  discharged.  They 
were  idle  only  a few  days,  when  they 
were  reinstated. 

Commissioner  Wright  asked  if  the 
Lehigh  Valley  company  has  any  ob- 
jection to  check  docking  bosses.  The 
witness  said  he  did  not  favor  them  be- 
cause of  the  turmoil  engendered  by 
having  two  men  exercising  judgment 
on  the  one  thing. 

Commissioner  Wright  asked  the  wit- 
ness if  he  ever  had  considered  the  ad- 
visability of  an  accident  insurance  com- 
pany controlled  jointly  by  all  the  com- 
panies, for  the  benefit  of  the  miners. 
The  witness  said  he  had  not  given  the 
matter  any  thought. 

Judge  Gray’s  Short  Cut. 

Mr.  Darrow  was  proceeding  to  cross- 
question the  witness  regarding  check 
docking-bosses.  Judge  Gray  took  a 
short  cut  to  what  Mr.  Darrow  was 
driving  at,  by  asking,  “If  the  men  had 
the  choosing  of  the  docking  bosses 
would  the  companies  insist  on  a check- 
docking  boss?” 

The  laughter  drowned  the  answer 
the  witness  made,  if  he  made  one. 

Division  Superintendent  R.  S.  Mercur, 
of  the  Schuylkill  mines  of  the  Lehigh 
Valley  Coal  company  was  the  last  wit- 
ness of  the  day.  Incidentally,  he  was 
one  of  the  most  interesting. 

He  began  by  saying  that  the  circular 
issued  by  President  Mitchell  urging  the 
miners  to  do  all  the  work  they  could 
to  help  relieve  the  coal  famine,  was 
having  no  effect.  The  miners,  he  said, 
regarded  it  as  an  utterance  not  to  be 
heeded.  The  whole  thing,  the  miners 


166 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


believed,  was  a scheme  of  the  com- 
panies to  make  it  possible  to  show  big 
earnings  for  the  miners,  while  the  com- 
mission was  in  session.  At  all  events 
the  miners  contend,  there  is  no  coal 
famine. 

“There  isn’t,”  fairly  shouted  Judge 
Gray.  “You  ought  to  go  down  to  Wil- 
mington and  see  poor  people  standing 
in  line  trying  to  buy  coal  at  seventeen 
or  eighteen  cents  a bucket.” 

“Why  do  not  the  operators  put  on 
two  shifts?”  asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

“There  isn’t  coal  enough  being  mined 
to  run  the  breaker  on  one  shift,”  re- 
plied Mr.  Mercur. 

“Why  do  you  not  put  on  two  shifts 
of  miners?”  asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

“You  furnish  us  the  men,  and  we’ll 
run  the  breaker  and  the  mines  day  and 
night,”  replied  the  witness. 

Union  Interference. 

Superintendent  Mercur,  at  this  junc- 
ture related  an  instance  of  the  union 
interfering  in  work. 

H.  E.  Madeville,  a contractor,  was 
engaged  to  construct  a power  house 
at  the  Packer  No.  5 colliery  of  the 
Lehigh  Valley  company  near  Shenan- 
doah during  the  strike.  He  was  pre- 
vented even  from  having  his  material 
delivered  by  the  interference  of  strik- 
ers. 


In  desperation  Mr.  Madeville  sent  a 
sent  a letter  to  District  President  John 
Fahey,  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
asking  him  to  prevent  the  interference. 
Mr.  Fahy  replied  as  follows: 

Secretary’s  Office,  District  No.  9, 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 

Shamokin,  Pa.,  Aug.  20,  1902. 
Mr.  H.  E.  Madeville,  Hazleton,  Pa. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  communication  of  re- 

cent date  received  and  contents  carefully 
noted. 

On  account  of  existing  conditions  I can- 
not grant  you  the  permission  which  as  I 
understand  from  your  letter  that  you  re- 
quest. 

It  is  a very  hard  matter  for  me  to  say 
with  any  degree  of  certainty  when  and 
where  you  might  meet  me,  but  if  you  de- 
sire to  come  to  Shamokin  you  may  do 
so  and  call  at  Mine  Workers’  headquar- 
ters where  you  will  be  able  to  meet  one 
of  our  district  officers  who  can  give  you 
further  information  on  the  matter  if  you 
wish  it. 

It  seems  to  me  though,  in  judging  from 
the  contents  of  your  letter,  that  nothing 
can  be  done  in  the  line  you  request  and 
that  such  a trip  would  not  change  in  any 
degree  what  I have  told  you  above. 

Yours  truly, 

John  Fahy. 

Judge  Gray’s  Sarcasm. 

Addressing  the  witness,  Judge  Gray 
said  in  the  most  sarcastic  tones:  “Why 


did  not  Mr.  Madeville  see  him  later 
and  endeavor  to  gain  permission.  May- 
be he  could  soften  Mr.  Fahy.  If  he 
went  to  him  in  submission,  he  might 
have  softened  him.” 

Then  the  judge’s  tones  became  tinged 
with  indignation  and  he  said: 

“I  haven’t  been  educated  to  this 
word  permission.  I hate  tyranny, 
whether  it  is  by  operators  or  miners, 
or  anybody  else.” 

Another  letter  the  witness  produced 
was  as  follows: 

Local  No.  1473. 

United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 

Centralia,  Pa.,  June  9,  1902. 
Mr.  William  Reed,  Centralia.  Pa. 

Dear  Sir  and  Brother:  I have  been  re- 

quested by  our  Local  to  notify  you  that 
you  are  doing  the  work  of  a United  Mine 
Worker  of  America,  and  that  you  cease 
hauling  any  material  for  the  L.  V.  C.  Co. 
at  once.  Fraternally  yours. 

S.  M.  Leiby,  Secretary. 

Seal  of  Local  1479. 

When  the  witness  explained  that 
Reed’s  offense  was  that  of  hauling  feed 
to  mine  workers,  Judge  Gray  said:  “I 
don’t  believe  that.  Is  it  true?”  The 
witness  assured  him  that  it  was. 

“Well,  it  must  have  been  pretty  far 
up  in  the  mountains,  wasn’t  it.” 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Jan.  22. 

[From  The  Soranton  Tribune,  Jan.  23.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  22.  — President 
Mitchell’s  claim  that  3,000  former  em- 
ployes of  the  coal  companies  have  been 
refused  work,  in  direct  violation  of  the 
terms  of  the  submission  agreement,  was 
challenged  in  the  boldest  terms  by  At- 
torney James  H.  Torrey,  of  Scranton, 
at  this  morning’s  session  of  the  mine 
strike  commission. 

Mr.  Torrey  declared  that  he  had 
made  an  effort  to  investigate  the  mat- 
ter since  Saturday,  when  the  Mitchell 
statement  was  made,  and  as  a result 
of  his  inquiries  he  would,  with  author- 
ity, challenge  the  other  side  to  produce 
a list  of  even  200  men,  for  whose  idle- 
ness the  companies  are  responsible,  not 
excluding  even  the  men  refused  re-em- 
ployment  by  reason  of  having  partici- 
pated in  criminal  acts  during  the  strike. 

The  statement  of  President  Mitchell 
was  made  with  a view  of  fastening  the 
responsibility  for  the  ’coal  famine  on 
the  operators.  No  response  was  made 
to  it,  at  the  time,  but,  immediately, 
Mr.  Torrey  began  an  investigation  for 
the  purpose  of  combatting  the  claim  of 
the  miners’  leader.  The  results  of  his 
investigation,  as  set  forth  in  his  chal- 
lenge, fairly  nonplussed  Mr.  Darrow, 
and  all  he  could  say  was  that  he  was 
not  present  when  Mr.  Mitchell  made 
the  statement,  but  assuming  that  he 
made  it,  there  was  a possibility  that  by 
reason  of  long  association  with  Presi- 
dent Raer  and,  Mr.  Markle,  the  miners’ 
president  had  gotten  into  the  habit  of 
making  careless  statements. 


“Mr.  Baer  and  Mr.  Markle  have  made 
no  statements  before  this  commission, 
Mr.  Darrow,”  said  Mr.  Torrey  in  criti- 
cism of  Mr.  Darrow  having  gone  out- 
side the  case  for  a target  at  which  to 
aim  his  arrows  of  retort. 

“Yes,  but  they  made  statements  to 
the  president  of  the  United  States  con- 
cerning the  miners,  which  were  grossly, 
extremely  and  unexcusably  false,”  said 
Mr.  Darrow  with  much  feeling. 

Warren  Challenges  Darrow. 

Major  Warren,  on  behalf  of  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western,  Penn- 
sylvania, Hillside  and  Temple  com- 
panies, which  he  represents,  challenged 
Mr.  Darrow  to  present  the  case  of  a 
single  individual  whom  these  companies 
refused  to  re-employ,  exclusive  of  steam 
men  who  deserted  their  posts,  whose 
places  had  to  be  filled  and  whose  sub- 
stitutes the  companies  did  not  feel 
called  upon  to  displace.  Major  Warren 
further  said  he  was  ready  to  show  that 
some  of  these  latter  whose  places  had 
been  filled,  including  steam  men  who 
deserted  their  posts  and  left  the  com- 
pany's property  liable  to  destruction, 
had  been  re-employed. 

Mr.  Darrow  Excited. 

Mr.  Darrow  became  very  much  ex- 
cited during  the  "free  congress”  and 
declared  that  he  was  ready  to  prove 
from  the  operators  own  witnesses  that 
the  companies  and  not  the  union  were 
responsible  for  the  restrictions  of  out- 
put and  that  if  he  couldn’t  prove  it  he 


would  go  back  to  Chicago  and  ask  the 
commission  to  find  against  the  miners. 

The  companies,  he  went  on  to  say 
are  claiming  the  union  would  not  let 
the  miners  load  six  cars,  when  their 
own  statements  prove  that  they  have 
not  supplied  the  miners  with  more  than 
three  cars.  “It's  the  old  case  of  throw- 
ing dust  in  the  eyes  of  the  American 
public”  declared  Mr.  Darrow. 

He  also  served  notice  that  he  stood 
ready  to  convict  the  operators  of  the 
grossest  prejudice  and  ignorance  in 
trying  to  fix  the  responsibility  for  the 
jeopardizing  of  mine  property  by  flood- 
ing on  employes,  when  they,  themselves 
were  at  fault  in  trying  to  force  old 
employes  to  work  twelve  hours  a day 
and  a shift  of  twenty-four  every  sec- 
ond week. 

He  admitted  the  union  had  tried  to 
regulate  individual  production  but  de- 
nied that  it  attempted  any  restriction 
of  output.  It  was  simply  a case,  he 
said,  of  preventing  some  from  eating 
all  the  crusts  thrown  to  the  miners  by 
the  companies,  while  others  would  have 
to  go  hungry. 

Judge  Gray’s  Opinion. 

During  the  progress'  of  the  discussion 
Judge  Gray  took  occasion  to  severely 
censure  the  miners  who  are  refusing 
to  help  by  extra  work  the  efforts  to 
relieve  the  local  famine.  "It  is  not 
very  creditable  to  their  intelligence  and 
humanity”  said  the  judge.  His  re- 


marks,  of  course,  were  accompanied  by 
the  qualification  ‘if  true.” 

Division  Superintendent  Mercur,  of 
the  Lehigh  Valley  company  had  testi- 
fied that  miners  told  him  they  doubted 
the  existence  of  a coal  famine  and  re- 
garded the  action  of  the  companies  in 
trying  to  induce  them  to  get  out  more 
coal  as  an  effort  to  pad  the  miners’ 
earnings  for  the  effect  it  would  have  on 
the  commission.  Mr.  Darrow  on  cross- 
examination  demanded  the  names  of 
the  men  who  had  given  this  informa- 
tion. Mr.  Mercur  refused  to  give  the 
names.  Thereupon  the  following  col- 
loquy occurred: 

Mr.  Darrow:  Then  I ask  to  have  the 
testimony  of  this  witness  as  to  that  mat- 
ter stricken  out.  You  cannot  charge  us 
with  that  unless  we  have  a chance  to  dis- 
prove it. 

The  Chairman:  I do  not  know  that  he 
is  charging  anybody  with  it.  He  is  cer- 
tainly not  charging  the  union  with  it. 
We  have  no  right  to  compel  him  to  an- 
swer. 

Mr.  Darrow:  But  it  is  a question  of 

fairness  to  us. 

The  Chairman:  It  may  injure  the  min- 
ers, but  could  not  injure  the  union. 

Mr.  Darrow:  But  still,  he  says  they 
were  union  men,  and  the  only  purpose 
was  to  reflect  upon  us  in.  this  case.  I do 
not  suppose  it  amounts  to  much,  but 
whatever  there  is  in  it,  we  should  have 
a chance  to  disprove  it. 

Mr.  Gowen:  He  did  not  say  on  direct 
examination  that  they  were  union  men 
at  all. 

The  Chairman:  Suppose  a man  was 
asked  to  mine  more  coal,  on  account  of 
the  coal  famine,  and  he  said  by  way  tf 
explanation  of  his  refusal  to  do  so  that 
they  did  not  believe  there  was  a famine? 
I do  not  know  who  brought  that  out, 
whether  it  was,  one  of  the  commissioners 
or  not. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  was  said  in  answer 
to  their  counsel. 

The  Chairman:  Whoever  it  was  that 
brought  it  out,  somebody  said  they  be- 
lieved it  was  an  attempt  to  increase  the 
output  of  coal  to  base  wages  on. 

Mr.  Darrow:  It  it  is  a matter  of  con- 
sequence to  the  commission,  I should 
have  a right  to  rebut  it. 

Mr.  Gowen:  It  was  not  made,  and  could 
not  be  made,  as  an  accusation  against  the 
union.  Mr.  Mercur,  in  his  direct  testi- 
mony, did  not  say  even  that  the  men 
he  had  talked  to  were  union  men.  It  was 
not  intended  as  a reflection  on  the  union, 
and  there  was  no  reference  to  the  union 
until  you  cross  examined  him  as  to 
whether  they  Were  union  men  or  not. 

Mr.  Darrow:  But  this  whole  case  is  a 
case  against  the  union. 

Mr.  Gowen:  I do  not  agree  with  that. 

Mr.  Darrow:  If  it  has  not  any  such 
purpose  or  effect,  I do  not  care  anything 
about  it. 

The  Chairman:  All  the  evidence  we 
have  here,  and  we  take  it  as  absolute 
verity,  is  that.  Mr.  John  Mitchell,  the 
president  of  the  union,  has  urged  the 
miners  to  make  the  output  of  coal  as 
large  as  possible.  We  believe  that  has 
been  done  so  f&r  as  the  union  is  con- 
cerned. We  have  that  evidence,  and  we 
accept  it. 

Mr.  Darrow:  This  testimony  to  which 
I have  been  referring  seemed  to  make 
quite  an  impression  on  the  chairman. 

The  Chairman:  Whether  Mr.  Mitche’l 
was  able  to  induce  all  the  miners  to  re- 


MlNE STRIKE  COMMISSION 


spond  to  his  request,  any  more  than  Mr. 
Mercur  has  been  able  to  make  them  re- 
spond to  his  own  request,  is  another 
Question. 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  testimony  to  which  I 
refer  seemed  to  make  quite  an  impres- 
sion on  your  honor  when  it  went  in,  and 
that  is  why  I brought  the  matter  up  now. 

The  Chairman:  Well,  I think  myself 
that  if  the  miners  did  not  respond  to  that 
request  of  Mr.  Mitchell,  it  is  not  very 
creditable  to  their  intelligence  or  hu- 
manity— it  may  be  to  their  intelligence 
only.  If  they  do  not  believe  there  is  a 
coal  famine,  or  any  social  duty  or  re- 
sponsibility upon  them  to  make  special 
efforts,  under  the  circumstances,  it  is  not 
very  creditable  to  their  intelligence. 

Mr.  Darrotv:  That  is  the  reason  that, 
when  as  we  claim  in  this  case,  and  as  I 
think  we  have  shown  overwhelmingly, 
the  whole  responsibility  is  on  the  com- 
panies, it  is  not  fair  to  stab  these  miners 
in  the  dark,  as  is  done  by  this  sort  of 
irresponsible  evidence,  which  we  claim  is 
utterly  untrue. 

Irresponsible  Statements. 

Mr.  Torrey:  May  I say  just  one  word 

on  this  general  situation,  and  the  alle- 
gation which  has  been  made?  It  is 
stated  by  Mr.  Darrow  that  there  are  ir- 
responsible statements  made  here  which 
prejudiced  the  miners.  It  was  not  my 
privilege  to  be  present  at  the  adjourn- 
ment on  Saturday,  when  Mi.  Mitchell  dis- 
charged his  Parthian  shot  and  attempted 
to  cover  this  whole  situation  by  a state- 
ment which  was  quite  as  irresponsible, 
so  far  as  evidence  goes,  as  any  statement 
that  has  been  made,  and  in  which  he 
charged  the  entire  difficulty  upon  the 
operators — apparently  from  the  record— 
because  they  had  refused  to  retain  or  had 
discharged  3,000  miners. 

The  Chairman:  Not  discharged;  but 
that  there  were  3,000  miners  not  at  work 
—not  taken  back. 

Mr.  Torrey:  That  I have  made  some 
effort  to  investigate  since  then,  by  in- 
quiries among  the  officers  and  representa- 
tives of  the  companies  here,  and  I think 
I am  justified  and  authorized  in  challeng- 
ing the  gentleman  to  show  ten  per  cent, 
of  that  3,000  who  have  not  been  taken 
back.  There  may  be  3,000  employes  who 
have  not  been  taken  back.  The  great  ma- 
jority of  them  are  those  who  are  em- 
ployed in  mines  which  are  flooded  by 
reason  of  the  refusal  of  the  mine  workers 
to  permit  them  to  be  pumped  out  during 
the  strike,  and  most  of  the  balance  are 
those  whose  places  were  supplied  durirg 
the  strike,  and  who  were  strictly  under 
the  limitation  affixed  by  the  operators  in 
their  original  submission  in  this  case,  in 
which  they  said  they  would  discharge  no 
non-union  men.  Outside  of  that,  I say, 
we  challenge  them  to  produce  the  namis 
of  300— or,  I think  1 could  safely  say  of 
230— contract  miners  who  have  not  been 
taken  back.  There  have  been  some  in 
most  of  the  companies.  Some  people  tell 
me  that  there  are  none  in  their  com- 
panies who  were  refused  employment  by 
reason  of  their  participation  in  criminal 
proceedings:  but  I say  that  that  wou'd 
be  limited  by  that  number  of  three  hun- 
dred, and  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  great  mass  of  the  striking  miners, 
according  to  the  testimony,  great  bodies 
of  them  all  over  the  region  were  en- 
gaged in  these  lawless  proceedings,  I say 
that  if  amnesty  has  been  given  to  all  ex- 
cept so  small  a proportion  as  that,  out 
of  125,000  or  130,000  men.  it  has  approached 
the  limit  of  generosity  and  forbearance, 
and  there  is  no  proof  here  at  all  of  any 


167 


effort  to  vindictively  oppress  the  miners 
or  refuse  them  work. 

Mr.  Warren:  I think  it  is  perhaps  fair 
to  say  that  as  to  the  northern  field,  with 
which  we  are  familiar,  that  statement  is 
absolutely  correct.  I think  Mr.  Darrow 
is  right  in  his  position  here  that  there  is 
an  effort  on  our  part,  which  I frankly 
say  I have  made,  in  view  of  their  asso- 
ciation to  show  that  the  union,  notwith- 
standing Mr.  Mitchell’s  suggestions  or  in- 
structions to  them,  has  not  responded  to 
that  request.  I approved  it.  I think,  by 
the  statement  that  a particular  local  had 
declined  by  resolution  to  work  any  moie 
hours.  So  that  I think  there  is  evidence 
here,  Mr.  Chairman,  notwithstanding 
your  suggestion,  there  is  some  evidence 
on  the  record  within  the  last  few  days 
that  will  show  that  the  union,  as  such, 
has  not  responded  to  Mr.  Mitchell’s  re- 
quest 

The  Chairman:  What  do  you  mean, 
Major,  by  saying  notwithstanding  my 
suggestion? 

Mr.  Warren:  I understood  you  to  say 
that  you  took  it  as  a verity,  or  some- 
thing like  that,  that  since  Mr.  Mitchell 
had  made  the  suggestion,  or  the  instruc- 
tion, or  the  order,  which  has  been  re- 
ferred to,  that  the  union  had  responded. 

The  Chairman:  I said  that  I took  it  as 
a verity  that  Mr.  Mitchell,  as  the  head 
of  the  union,  had  in  good  faith  urged 
upon  the  members  of  the  union  under  his 
jurisdiction  to  increase  their  output  of 
coal. 

Mr.  Warren:  Oh,  there  is  no  doubt 
about  that. 

The  Chairman:  That  is  what  I said. 

Mr.  Warren:  He  did  that,  and  did  it 

officially  and  every  other  way;  and,  more 
than  that.  I think  his  district  superin- 
tendents join  with  him  in  that  request.  I 
think  they  are  on  that  proclamation. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  But  this  was 

prior  to  Mr.  Mitchell’s  request? 

Mr.  AVarren:  I think  not.  I think  you 
will  find  that  Mr.  Phillips  testified  that 
it  was  within  a day  or  two  before  be 
came  down  here  to  testify.  I am  not 
quite  positive  that  he  testified  upon  that 
direct  question  when  he  was  on  the 
stand,  covering  the  restrictions  the  lo- 
cals had  themselves  placed  upon  the  op- 
portunity of  their  members  to  assist  In 
this  effort  to  have  an  increased  output. 
I think  he  went  into  that  in  other  re- 
spects, but  he  also  said  within  a day  or 
two  before  he  was  on  the  stand  that  they 
received  reports  that  they  were  working 
overtime  at  some  of  the  collieries  of  the 
Delaware.  Lackawanna  and  Western, 
more  than  ten  hours  of  the  breakers;  that 
the  men  in  some  places  were  responding 
very  fairly  and  doing  everything  they 
could  to  co-operate.  I would  like  to  have 
Mr.  Darrow— I asked  him  to  do  it  the 
other  day— furnish  me  with  the  names  • f 
men  employed  by  the  Hillside  or  the 
Pennsylvania  Coal  company  or  the  De  a- 
ware,  Lackawanna  and  AVestern  Railroad 
company,  or  the  Temple  Iron  company, 
contract  miners,  that  were  not  given  an 
opportunity  to  work,  because  I challenged 
the  statement  that  there  were  any.  I 
asked  him  to  furnish  them  to  me.  That 
does  not  take  in  the  steam  men,  the  en- 
gineers who  abandoned  their  positioi  s 
and  left  the  mines  to  flood,  and  whose 
places  were  filled  to  preserve  the  proper- 
ty. We  have  not  deemed  it  necessa  y 
that  we  should  displace  those  men  to  fur- 
nish these  steam  men  with  employment, 
although  many  of  them  have  gotten  em- 
ployment in  other  positions. 

Mr.  Dai  row:  If  your  honor  please,  this 


168 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


ia  all  a little  irregular.  I did  not  hear 
Mr.  Mitchell's  statement.  It  is  possible 
that  his  long  association  with  Mr.  Markle 
and  Mr.  Baer  may  have  made  him  a little 
careless. 

Mr.  Torrey:  They  have  made  no  state- 

ment  to  this  commission. 

Mr.  Darrow:  They  made  a statement 

to  the  president  of  the  United  States 
•which  is  absolutely  false,  grossly  and  ex- 
tremely and  inexcusably  false,  with  ref- 
erence to  this  whole  controversy. 

Now  I am  informed  that  there  are  a 
large  number  of  men  who  have  not  been 
.taken  back.  I would  not  pretend  to  say 
how  many.  I have  a list  here  of  one  hun- 
dred in  one  colliery,  which  I have  not  yet 
examined.  I have  had  other,  things  to  do 
rather  than  to  hunt  up  the  names  of  boy- 
cotted men  and  furnish  them  to  these  gen- 
tlemen. 

I will  say,  however,  that  of  all  the  in- 
iquities practiced,  about  the  worst  is 
sending  out  these  old  men  who  refused  to 
work  twenty-four  hours  a day  every  two 
weeks  and  twelve  hours  every  other  day, 
and  I have  grown  a little  weary  of  hear- 
ing these  companies  charge  that  these 
slaves  were  responsible  for  flooding  their 
mines  when  they  did  it  to  save  a few 
paltry  dollars  or  because  of  the  existence 
of  a most  inexcusable  prejudice  and  ig- 
norance, and  did  it  themselves.  That, 
however,  we  will  meet  when  the  time 
comes. 

I will  say  this,  though,  that  if  we  do 
not  show  everwhelmingly,  and  if  I do 
not  demonstrate  from  the  evidence  of  the 
companies  themselves,  that  all  of  this 
restriction  is  due  to  them,  I will  go  back 
to  Chicago  and  ask  this  commision  to  find 
against  us.  It  does  not  depend  on  our 
evidence.  We  have  it  from  their  wit- 
nesses and  their  documents  in  this  case, 
and  we  will  not  have  to  go  any  further 
than  that,  as  to  all  of  these  restrictions 
that  are  paraded  here  that  a man  won’t 
load  seven  cars,  when  they  have  not  fur- 
nished him  three  in  any  instance,  or  two 
and  a half,  covering  these  years.  All 
that  is  simply  in  the  original  line  of 
throwing  dust  into  the  eyes  of  the  Ameri- 
can people,  and  not  made  in  good  faith  in 
any  way  in  this  case.  When  it  comes  to 
our  .side  for  rebuttal,  we  will  introduce 
our  evidence. 

The  Chairman:  I understand,  Mr.  Dar- 
row, that  you  take  issue  of  the  general 
statement  and  charge  here  that  there  is 
any  restriction  on  the  output  of  the 
miner  placed  upon  him  by  the  union. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Why,  to  be  sure. 

The  Chairman:  I just  wanted  to  know. 
You  do  take  that  position? 

Would  Regulate  Crusts. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes.  I do  not  deny  but 

what  the  miners  have  sought  to  regu- 
late the  crusts  that  have  been  thrown 
to  them  so  that  one  man  should  not  have 
a loaf  while  the  other  has  nothing.  But 
they  have  not  done  it  because  there  are 
too  many  cars.  If  those  men  were  fur- 
nished the  wark  and  the  cars  according 
to  their  own  statements,  there  will  be  no 
restriction  anywhere  in  this  region.  Let 
them  take  their  own  written  records 
furnished  to  this  commission  and  see  the 
story  they  tell.  I do  contend,  and  I al- 
ways shall,  unless  I change  my  mind— 
and  I have  studied  these  questions  a good 
deal— that  where  there  is  not  work  enough 
to  go  round,  common  justice  and  com- 
mon rumanity  would  say  that  one  man 
should  not  jump  in  and  eat  all  there  is 
and  leave  the  rest  hungry,  and  that  is  all 
the  miners  have  attempted  to  do  in  this 
case,  1 


The  Chairman:  Enough  to  go  around 

where?  The  whole  community? 

Mr.  Darrow:  To  those  miners  whom 

they  carry  on  their  pay  rolls.  If  they  do 
not  want  them,  let  them  discharge  them. 
So  long  as  they  carry  them,  they  are  em- 
ployes of  the  company,  and  it  is  right 
that  there  should  be  regulation  and  some 
fair  equality  amongst  the  men,  when 
there  is  not  enough  to  go  around.  That 
is  our  position  in  that  matter. 


THE  MORNING  SESSION. 
Thomas  Thomas,  Superintendent  of 

Seneca  Colliery,  Testifies  Regard- 
ing the  Loading  of  Cars. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion, Thomas  Thomas,  superintendent 
of  the  Seneca  colliery,  leased  by  the 
Lehigh  Valley  company,  testified  that 
before  the  coming  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  the  men  at  the  Exeter  colliery 
where  he  was  formerly  superintendent, 
would  load  all  the  cars  the  company 
asked  them  to  load.  Since  the  1900 
strike  they  can  not  be  induced  to  load 
more  than  six  cars  and  on  the  average 
they  will  not  load  that  many. 

Robert  S.  Mercur,  division  superin- 
tendent of  the  Schuylkill  region  col- 
lieries of  the  Lehigh  Valley  company 
was  recalled  by  Mr.  Darrow,  for  fur- 
ther cross-examination.  This  is  the 
witness  whose  testimony  at  the  close  of 
yesterday's  session,  caused  Judge  Gray 
to  deliver  himself  of  a bitter  denuncia- 
tion of  a condition  of  things  which  im- 
pelled a mine  superintendent  to  ask  per- 
mision  of  a district  president  of  a 
labor  union  to  allow  his  plant  to  be 
operated. 

Superintendent  Mercur  on  direct  ex- 
amination, yesterday,  said  he  would  run 
a double  shift  of  both  the  mines  and 
the  breakers  if  he  had  the  ipen. 

“How  many  men  can  you  take?” 
asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

“Well,  I haven’t  room  for  all  those 
three  thousand  miners  you  say  are  un- 
employed, but  I will  take  thirty  men 
at  once  to  work  on  our  culm  pile.” 

“That’s  very  cold  work,  isn’t  it?" 
Inquired  Mr.  Darrow. 

“No,  not  so  cold,”  replied  the  wit- 
ness. “The  culm  dump  is  so  warm  that 
the  men  keep  their  dinner  pails  warmed 
by  setting  them  about  six  inches  in  the 
culm.” 

Mr.  Darrow  did  not  offer  to  furnish 
any  men  to  Mr.  Mercur. 

In  response  to  questions  by  Com- 
missioner Parker,  the  witness  stated 
that  600  men  and  boys  wTere  idle  in  his 
district  by  reason  of  the  flooding  of 
a “lift”  in  Packer  No.  1,  No.  2 and  No. 
4 and  all  the  “lifts”  in  Packer  No.  5. 

Permission  was  secured  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row for  District  Board  Member  Ter- 
rance Ginley  to  further  cross-examine 
Superintendent  Mercur. 

Board  Member  Ginley  proceeded  to 
tell  General  Wilson,  the  acting  chair- 
man that  he  proposed  to  show  that 
Superintendent  Mercur  gave  a Polish 
saloon  keeper  a contract  to  rob  pillars 
in  preference  to  his  own  miners;  that 
this  was  a great  evil  and  cause  of 
much  dissension  and  that  it  ought  to 


be  abolished.  He  was  going  on  to  say 
more,  'when  General  Wilson  Interrupted 
with:  “Mr.  Darrow,  if  this  gentleman 

has  anything  to  prove  let  him  prove  it. 
We  don’t  want  to  hear  any  stump 
speech.” 

And  at  that  General  Wilson  is  the 
most  polite,  patient  and  considerate 
man  any  man  ever  met.  It  has  been 
the  almost  invariable  experience,  it 
might  be  added,  that  when  one  of 
the  local  officers  of  the  union  has 
“butted  in”  the  commissioners  or  some 
one  of  them  have  been  aggravated  into 
saying  something  sharp  to  or  about 
him.  These  are  the  men  whom  the 
operators  are  asked  to  deal  with  as 
representatives  of  their  employes. 

The  Increase  of  1900. 

Superintendent  Mercur,  in  his  direct 
examination,  stated  that  the  men  in  his 
district  were  given  a 16  per  cent,  in- 
crease in  wages  in  1900.  Mr.  Gowen  on 
re-direct  examination  had  him  explain 
that  when  the  1900  strike  was  ended 
the  agreement  was  that  the  ten  per 
cent,  advance  should  be  based  on  the 
September  wages.  In  that  district 
payment  was  made  on  a sliding  scale. 
The  September  rate  happened  to  be 
six  per  cent,  above  the  normal  basis. 
The  ten  per  cent  advance  added  to  this 
six  per  cent,  gives  the  miner  sixteen 
per  cent,  increase. 

Mr.  Darrow  remarked  that  if  the 
sliding  scale  was  in  operation  now  there 
would  be  more  than  a sixteen  per  cent, 
increase  for  the  men, 

Philip  Kintersteen,  a former  superin- 
tendent for  J.  H.  Swoyer  & Co.,  and 
their  successor  the  Lehigh  Valley  com- 
pany for  twenty-seven  years,  at  the 
Wyoming  colliery,  told  that  in  1876, 
the  men  insisted  on  having  the  per-car 
system  of  payment  substituted  by  the 
weighing  system.  Scales  were  put  in 
and  the  weighing  system  adopted. 
Three  years  later  there  was  a dispute 
among  the  men  as  to  the  relative  merits 
of  the  two  systems.  The  per-car  ad- 
herents were  in  the  majority  ahd 
struck  for  the  re-establishment  of  the 
per-car  system.  After  being  out  a few 
weeks  the  company  agreed  to  change 
back  to  the  per-car  system  and  it  has 
been  in  vogue  ever  since. 

Mr.  McClintock’s  Address. 

The  case  of  the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes- 
Barre  Coal  company  was  opened  by 
Andrew  H.  McClintock,  of  Wilkes-Barre 
with  the  following  address: 

May  it  Please  the  Commission:  The 

Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre  Coal  company 
is  the  owner  and  operator  of  certain  col- 
lieries. the  greater  number  of  which  are 
situated  In  the  Wyoming  region,  near 
Wilkes-Barre,  although  it  also  has  others 
at  Audenried  in  the  Lehigh  coal  field. 

The  total  number  of  collieries  is  eleven, 
and.  in  addition  thereto,  one  washery  is 
in  operation. 

This  company  is  the  largest  owner  and 
lessee  of  coal  lands  in  the  Wyoming  re- 
gion. and  is  the  largest  taxpayer  in  Lu- 
zerne county,  the  third  county  in  the 
state.  About  one-eighth  of  the  taxes  of 
this  county  are  pafd  by  the  company. 
The  entire  taxes  which  it  paid  for  1901 


were  $171, -589.71,  ' of  which  $69,387.14  alone, 
went  to  the  support  of  schools.  The  coal 
in  the  Wyoming  valley  lies  generally  in 
what  are  known  as  flat  veins,  although 
there  are  many  instances  of  steep,  pick- 
ing veins;  the  latter  are  characteristic  of 
our  mines  in  the  Lehigh  region,  and  the 
conditions  in  connection  with  the  mining 
vary  in  consequece.  No  attack  or  com- 
plaints have  been  made  before  the  com- 
mission against  this  company,  of  any  con- 
sequence whatever;  indeed,  only  one  of 
our-miners  was  called,  and  his  testimony 
is-  so  baldly  improbable  and  his  state- 
ments so  discredited  by  his  further  exam- 
ination, that  it  is  unnecessary  to  pay  any 
attention  thereto.  The  other  five  wit- 
nesses .were  ‘‘outside  men,”  whose  places 
had  been  filled  during  the  strike,  and, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions,  all  had  been 
promised  work,  and  the  ones  who  had  not 
been  so  promised  had  not  made  any  re- 
quest for  re-employment. 

, All  of  our.  miners  are  back  at  work,  at 
least  all  who  have  applied  are  back,  we 
have  refused,,  no  one,  discriminated 
against  nobody,  and  we  had,  during  the 
year  1901,  which,  our  statement  covers, 
and  have  now,  work  for  more  miners 
than  were  then  or  are  at  present  in  our 
employ.  . In  the  face  of  this  failure  to 
present  complaints  against  us.  we  have 
•been  spmewhat  at.  a loss  to  know  how 
far  we  should  make  reply.  Having  this 
in  view,  and  considering  also  the  fact 
that  much  of  the  valuable,  and,  we  sub- 
mit, convincing  testimony  which  has  been 
produced  by  the  operating  companies 
which  have  preceded  us,  and  which  ap- 
plies equally  to  all  the  mines  in  our  re- 
gion, we  feel  that  it  is  hardly  necessary 
for  us  to  consume  the  valuable  time  of 
this  commission  with  the  examination  of 
many  persons,  whose  testimony  would 
only  tend  to  be  cumulative  in  character, 
or  to  corroborate  what  has  already  been 
well  proven. 

We  shall,  therefore,  confine  our  wit- 
nesses to  those  acquainted  with  the  gen- 
eral conditions  our  our  property;  our 
methods  of  mining;  our  manner  of  pay- 
ment, and  the  amounts  paid  men  who 
worked  during  at  least  part  of  each 
: month' in  the  year,  which  covers  about  70 
per  cent,  of  our  force,  and  which  we 
conceive  is  the.  fairest  possible  way  of 
ascertaining  the  annual  earning  ability  of 
those  in  our  employ. 

Our  statements  will  show  that  our  men 
’ earn  fair  wages,  equal,  we  think,  to  those 
paid  by  any  company  in  the  district 
wherein  our  mines  are  situated,  and 
higher  than  the  rates  of  pay  of  many  em- 
' ployers  of  like  labor. 

Our  statements  give  actual'  facts,  with- 
out estimates,  as,  by  our  method,  we  pay 
each  man,  whether  miner,  laborer  or 
member  of  a partnership.  It  must  be  un- 
derstood, however,  that  the  amount  a 
laborer  receives  is  fixed  not  by  us,  but 
by  his  miner,  who  returns  his  laborer's 
earnings  to  us  before  the  semi-monthly 
pay  day. 

We  pay  by  the  car,  and  have  always 
done  so ; we  deem  it  the  fairest  method ; 
the  miner  can  see  the  quantity  he  sends 
out;  the  system  is  thoroughly  nuderstood 
by  the  men,  arid  arty  new  method  of 
weighing  would  involve  a readjustment, 
not  only  of  the  breakers,  which  is  to 
some  degree  and  fn  some  special  instances 
a difficult  problem,  but  what  is  much 
more  serious,  a readjustment  or  rather  a 
complete  and  radical  change  and  recon- 
struction of  methods  of  payment  that 
have  always  prevailed,  and  which,  so 
far  as  the  memory  of  our  witnesses  can 
go,  have  never  been  objected  t.o  or  com- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


plained  of  by  our  miners  until  the  present 
demands  were  formulated  by  Mr.  Mit- 
chell. 

Allowances  Made. 

In  addition  to  the  pay  per  car  an  allow- 
ance is  made  to  the  miner  for  placing 
props,  putting  up  sets  of  timbers,  brat- 
ticing,  removing  rock,  yardage  and  cer- 
tain conditions  of  other  allowances  as 
shown  in  our  statement  already  filed. 

These  allowances  enter  as  much  into  the 
miner's  pay  that  it  may  surprise  one  to 
know  that  they  amount  to  an  average  of 
47  cents,  or  thereabouts,  per  car.  This 
amount  is  not  given  for  the  purpose  of 
basing  a computation  thereon,  as  the 
rates  vary  according  to  the  varying  con- 
ditions of  the  different  mines,  but  only  to 
show  how  large  a factor  these  allowances 
become  in  the  yearly  earnings.  Our  sys- 
tem of  docking  is  ihe  same  as  is  in  vogue 
throughout  the  region,  and  for  the  year 
1901  our  statement  of  the  docking  at  all 
our  collieries  shows  that  it  amounted  to 
2.89  per  cent,  of  the  cars  dumped  at  the 
breakers.  We  have  no  check  docking 
bosses.  We  do  not  object  to  their  appoint- 
ment by  the  men,  but  we  have  never  been 
requested  to  permit  their  employment. 
Some  of  our  docking  bosses  have  been 
in  their  positions  for  a number  of  years, 
in  one  instance  the  same  man  has  per- 
formed this  work  for  a period  of  twenty- 
five  years;  that  such  is  the  case,  speaks 
volumes  for  the  justice  and  equality  of 
the  system. 

Our  relations  with  our  men  have  alweys 
been  of  the  pleasantest  character.  They 
have  ever  been  free,  individually,  or  by 
committe  to  call  upon  the  foremen,  divis- 
ion superintendent  or  general  superinten- 
dent, with  any  grievances  or  requests; 
and  no  man  has  ever  been  discriminated 
against  for  so  appearing  or  for  any  other 
causes. 

Notwithstanding  our  efforts  in  this  re- 
gard, during  the  period  between  the  gen- 
eral strike  of  1900  and  1902,  we  have  found 
it  much  more  difficult  to  control  our 
men,  and  we  have  had  twelve  local  strikes 
in  our  mines.  Some  of  these  were  for  the 
most  trivial  causes,  and  none  of  them 
had  any  reason  or  merit  in  it.  This  spirit 
of  restlessness  shows  its  effect  in  the  loss 
of  efficiency  of  the  men  as  well  as  in  the 
time  lost  by  reasons  of  these  interfer- 
ences with  regular  and  systematic  labor. 

Our  mines  were  the  first  objects  of  at- 
tack at  the  beginning  of  the  strike  last 
summer,  and  the  list  of  incendiary  at- 
tacks, dynamiting,  intimidation,  mob  vio- 
lence artd  disorder  would  fill  many  pages 
if  fully  told. 

But  now  that  these  trials  have  become 
things  of  the  past,  and  we  are  here  before 
this  honorable  commission,  asking  for  a 
just  decision  of  the  questions  at  issue,  we 
hope  that  the  members  of  the  commission 
will  understand  and  believe  the  we  have 
not  oppressed,  over-burdened  or  under- 
paid, our  employes,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
that  the  treatment  we  have  accorded 
them  has  been  honorable,  straightforward 
and  fair,  and  finally,  we  sincerely  trust 
that  the  decision  of  the  matter  may  bring 
a return  of  peace,  good  will  and  prosper- 
ity to  the  entire  anthracite  region,  and 
that  misunderstandings,  strife  and  in- 
timidation may  cease  within  its  borders. 

First  Lehigh  Witness. 

The  first  witness  for  the  Lehigh  and 
Wilkes-Barre  company  was  Warren  C. 
Johnson,  of  Philadelphia,  general  audi- 
tor, who  presented  the  statistics  pre- 
pared for  the  commission. 


169 

The  wages  of  contract  miners  were 
given  in  two  tables,  the  one  classifying 
the  men  according  to  the  number  of 
days  worked,  and  the  other  grouping 
them  according  to  the  wages.  The 
tables  include  66  per  cent,  of  the  miners, 
or  such  miners  who  worked  at  least  one 
day  every  month  the  colliery  worked. 
As  in  the  previous  instances,  the  figures 
were  for  the  year  1901. 


Statement  of 

earnings  of 

contract 

miners  classified 

according 

to  days 

worked: 

No. 

Average 

No.  of  Starts. 

of  Men. 

Earnings. 

Over  300  

3 

$851.54 

275  to  300 

21 

907.28 

250  to  275 

427 

650.10 

225  to  250 

390 

584.45 

200  to  225 

512.24 

175  to  200 

72 

440.07 

150  to  175 

43 

370.29 

125  to  150 

303.37 

Classification  of  Earnings. 


Classification  according  to  earnings, 
the  statement  required  by  the  commis- 
sion: 


Earnings. 

No.  Average 
of  Men.  Start. 

Over  $1,000  

9 

272 

$900  to  $1,000 

28 

263 

$800  to  $900 

58 

255 

$700  to  $800 

123 

254 

$600  to  $700 

238 

248 

$550  to  $600 

176 

241 

$500  to  $550 

164 

240 

$450  to  $500 

122 

227 

$400  to  $450 

71 

221 

$350  to  $400 

51 

200 

$300  to  $350 

29 

187 

$250  to  $300 

14 

168 

$200  to  $250 

1 

178 

Less  than  $200 

‘ 4 

16S 

Mr.  Johnson  also  testified  that  the 

average  allowance  per 

car,  in 

addition 

to  the  regular 

rate 

per  car 

was  45 

cents  for  extra 

work 

such  as 

setting 

props,  timbering, 

bailing  water. 

cutting 

and  moving  rock  and 

the  like.  Com- 

missioner  Watkins’  questions  qualified 
this  statement  to  the  extent  of  show- 
ing that  the  allowances  for  ‘‘heading” 
work  were  included  in  this  computa- 
tion. 

H.  C.  Mason,  of  Wilkes-Barre,  gen- 
eral land  agent  for  the  company  pre- 
sented figures  showing  that  585  of  the 
companies  employes  own  their  own 
houses;  that  the  assessed  valu- 
ation of  this  property  is  $551,628 
and  the  actual  value,  estimated,  is 
$1,000,000.  The  company  owns  1,155 
company  houses  and  these  are  occupied 
by  26  1-2  per  cent,  of  the  employes. 

He  also  told  that  the  company  pays 
taxes  in  Luzerne  county — where  nine 
of  its  eleven  collieries  are  located — 
amounting  to  $171,595  or  one-eighth  of 
the  total  tax  paid  to  the  county.  Of 
this  amount  $69,377  is  school  tax. 

Ages  of  Employes. 

A table  was  presented  by  Mr.  Mason 
showing  the  ages  of  the  3,477  inside 
employes  of  the  collieries  of  the  Wyom- 
ing district. 

It  disclosed  that  337  men  over  50  years 
of  age  work  inside  the  mines.  The 
table  was  as  follows: 


lto 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Age. 

Under  20 
20  to  30  . 
30  to  40  . 
40  to  50  . 
50  to  60  . 
60  to  70  . 
Over  70  . 


No.  of  Men. 

304 

1132 

10  2 

642 

2ij9 

43 


Mr.  Darrow  contented  himself  on 
cross-examination  with  the  admission 
from  the  witness  that  he  did  not  know 
whether  or  not  the  real  estate  owned 
by  employes  was  mortgaged. 

W.  J.  Richards,  general  superinten- 
dent of  the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre 
company  was  the  first  witness  of  the 
afternoon. 

The  company’s  breakers,  in  1901, 
worked  7 7-10  hours.  They  could  have 
worked  longer  if  the  miners  could  be 
induced  to  send  out  more  coal. 

Some  of  the  docking-bosses  have 
been  in  their  present  positions  for 
twenty-five  years.  Some  of  the  dock- 
ing bosses  are  members  of  the  miners’ 
union.  The  only  complaint  he  ever  re- 
ceived on  the  score  of  a docking  boss 
was  from  a committee  which  protested 
that  if  the  company  persisted  in  the 
practice  of  suspending  men  for  light 
loading,  they  would  have  to  ask  for 
check  docking  bosses.  He  told  the 
committee  that  any  colliery  that  would 
petition  for  a check  docking  boss  could 
have  one.  That  was  two  years  ago. 
No  petition  for  a check  docking  boss 
has  ever  been  presented. 


Conditions  from  1900-1902. 

Between  the  1900  and  1902  strikes 
there  were  twelve  petty  strikes  at  the 
company's  collieries.  Three  of  them 
resulted  from  the  company  refusing  to 
allow  the  union  to  inspect  working 
cards  on  the  colliery  property.  Another 
resulted  from  the  refusal  of  the  com- 
pany to  discharge  John  Rushton,  a 
Hollenback  colliery  miner,  who  went 
before  the  legislature  at  Harrisburg 
to  testify  against  the  Garner  mine  in- 
spection bill.  Superintendent  Richards 
elicited  an  admission  from  the  commit- 
tee that  Mr.  Rushton’s  testimony  was 
not  untrue,  whereupon  he  tried  to 
reason  with  them  that  they  had  no 
grievance  against  Mr.  Rushton,  and 
that  certainly  the  company  had  none. 
The  committee  was  not  to  be  reasoned 
with  and  gave  an  ultimatum  that  if  he 
was  not  discharged  they  would  strike. 
The  company  refused  to  grant  the  de- 
mand and  a strike  ensued. 

The  witness  detailed  some  of  the  strike 
violence  in  and  about  his  company’s 
collieries,  and  then  made  denial  of  all 
knowledge  of  a blacklist  or  discrimina- 
tion against  union  men. 

He  was  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Carthy, who  elicited  the  admission  that 
petty  strikes  were  known  before  the 
coming  of  the  union,  and  that  in  the 
Lehigh  region  during  the  incumbency 
of  Superintendent  Gomer  Jones,  of 
Hazleton,  they  were  very  frequent. 

Inside  Superintendent  Morgan  R. 
Morgan,  of  the  Wyoming  region  col- 
lieries, testified  that  the  docking  for 
light  loading,  in  1901,  was  one-half  of 


one  per  cent.  He  gave  specific  instances 
of  union  restrictions  of  output  and  fail- 
ure, since  the  coal  famine  set  in,  to  in- 
duce men  to  help  increase  the  output. 

Thomas  Rule,  fireboss  at  the  Wana- 
mie,  No.  18,  colliery,  testified  that  the 
secretary  of  the  Wanamie  local  told 
him  in  the  early  part  of  1900  that  the 
local  had  adopted  a resolution  restrict- 
ing the  number  of  cars  to  six  per  shift. 
At  that  time  the  men  were  sending  out 
from  seven  to  fourteen  cars  a shift. 
The  witness  admitted  it  required  twelve 
or  fourteen  hours  to  load  fourteen  cars. 

M.  J.  Flaherty,  outside  foreman  at 
the  Hollenback,  described  the  work  of 
firemen  and  engineers,  to  show  that 
they  are  not  the  arduous  tasks  the 
miners’  witnesses  described. 

Dr.  Frank  L.  McKee,  of  Plymouth, 
coroner  of  Luzerne  county,  gave  figures 
to  show  that  mining  is  not  an  unusually 
unhealthy  occupation.  In  eleven  years, 
according  to  the  Plymouth  board  of 
health  statistics,  only  nine  men  have 
died  of  miners’  asthma  in  that  town, 
and  fourteen  of  consumption. 

The  opening  of  the  case  of  the  indi- 
vidual operators  of  the  Lackawanna 
and  Wyoming  regions  was  made  at  4 
o’clock.  The  opening  address  was  de- 
livered by  H.  C.  Reynolds,  who,  with 
ex- Justice  Alfred  Hand  and  I.  H. 
Burns,  represents  all  the  fifteen  inde- 
pendent companies  of  that  region.  Mr. 
Reynolds’  address  was  as  follows: 

Address  of  the  Independents. 

In  presenting  the  case  of  the  individual 
operators,  we  realize  that  the  patience  of 
this  commission  has  its  limitations.  For 
many  weeks  you  have  listened  to  the  evi- 
dence offered  by  the  several  parties  to 
this  controversy,  with  a fairness  and  dis- 
crimination that  has  won  the  admiration 
and  respect  of  all  observers.  It  is  our 
purpose,  in  view  of  the  evidence  intro- 
duced heretofore  upon  tnose  general  ques- 
tions which  apply  to  our  properties  in 
common  with  those  of  the  other  operators 
in  the  same  fields,  to  refrain  from  the 
introduction  of  cumulative  evidence,  and 
unless  the  commission  so  directs,  we 
will  treat  our  case  as  though  the  evi- 
dence were  adduced  in  our  own  cause. 

With  two  exceptions  all  of  our  proper- 
ties are  situated  in  the  northern  anthra- 
cite coal  field,  either  in  Lackaw’anna  or 
Luzerne  counties.  With  these,  as  with 
all  other  companies,  there  are  varying 
conditions,  which  have  necessarily  given 
rise  to  varied  methods  of  adjustment,  in 
our  dealings  with  the  men.  We  have 
been  always  subject  to  every  advance  in 
wages,  and  have  accepted  the  conditions 
obtaining  generally  throughout  the  region. 

For  the  most  part  our  product  has  been 
sold  directly  to  the  various  auxiliary 
companies  of  the  railroads.  We  have  had 
nothing  to  do  with  fixing  the  price  at 
which  our  coal  should  be  sold,  and  have 
been  obliged  to  accept  such  part  of  the 
price  obtained  at  tidewater,  where  the 
coal  brings  less  upon  the  average  than 
at  any  other  place,  as  by  dint  of  perse- 
verance. aided  by  a just  cause,  we  were 
able  to  secure. 

To  the  adverse  natural  conditions  under 
which  many  of  our  mines  have  been  con- 
ducted, we  have  also  been  placed  in  a 
position  distinctly  discouraging  and  un- 
just in  other  directions.  We  have  suf- 


fered the  losses  incident  to  an  over-sup- 
ply upon  the  market,  and  have  sought, 
by  close  supervision  of  the  operation, 
compensation  which  would  minimize 
competitive  advantages  of  our  rivals  in 
the  trade,  who  have  enjoyed  substantial 
privileges  not  necessary  here  to  discuss, 
but  instantly  appreciated  by  the  observer 
Between  the  millstones  we  have  been, 
and  are  being,  ground,  and  by  reason  of 
conditions  beyond  our  control,  we  have 
been  helpless  as  though  bound  to  the 
chariot-wheels  of  Caesar. 

These  are  but  side  lights,  and  we  shall 
not  dwell  upon  them.  We  mine  generally 
smaller  areas,  and  thus  have  a larger 
comparative  fixed  charge  upon  our  ton- 
nage than  have  the  companies  auxiliary 
to  the  railroads. 

Wages. 

We  hone  to  be  able  to  prove  that  the 
wages  are  adequate  to  the  services  ren- 
dered, and  will  compare  favorably  with 
the  wages  paid  in  avocations  requiring 
like  skill  and  intelligence:  indeed,  we  be- 
lieve, that  they  are  large  enough  to  com- 
pensate any  hazard  which  it  is  just  and 
proper  to  charge  to  the  industry.  We  be- 
lieve an  advance  in  wages  at  this  time  is 
unwarranted,  and  that  to  do  so  will  at 
once  encourage  exorbitant  demands  in 
other  directions,  which  granted  would 
place  a new  burden  upon  the  shoulders 
of  the  consumer  whose  average  compen- 
sation is  less  than  that  of  the  mine 
worker. 

Prior  to  the  strike  of  1900  the  individual 
operators  urged  the  representatives  of  the 
large  companies  to  grant  an  advance  of 
wages  and  to  reduce  the  price  of  powder. 
We  believed  that  this  action  was  war- 
ranted at  that  time.  Now  we  take  the 
position  that  the  wages  are  adequate, 
that  having  met  our  employes  in  a spirit 
of  conciliation  in  1900,  who  were  general- 
ly represented  by  committees  of  the  local 
union,  composed  of  our  own  men,  con- 
sidered their  alleged  grievances,  granting 
such  as  could  be  done  reasonably,  and  in 
most  instances  showing  them  the  unrea- 
sonable character  of  other  of  their  de- 
mands, we  are  warranted  in  resisting 
their  present  unreasonable  requirements. 

Hours  of  Labor. 

We  hope  to  prove  that  the  hours  of  la- 
bor at  the  mines  are  now  too  brief,  and 
we  contend  that  the  compensation,  in 
these  days  of  active  demand  for  labor, 
has  been  and  now  is  fixed  by  an  econom- 
ical law  which  serves  to  secure  to  them 
wages  which  have  been  and  in  the  future 
will  be  favorable  to  their  interests. 

We  aver  that  the  conditions  in  the  an- 
thracite regions  are  such  that  the  miner 
who  went  to  the  bituminous  region  dur- 
ing the  strike,  instantly  returned  upon  the 
announcement  of  the  proposition  to  ar- 
bitrate; that  he  brought  back  with  him 
to  these  conditions,  characterized  as  “In- 
tolerable,” his  fellow  workmen  from  the 
bituminous  region;  that  the  anthracite 
miner  works  shorter  hours  at  wages  at 
least  equally  as  good  as  his  fellow  in  the 
bituminous  region,  and  that  his  environ- 
ment, religious,  educational  and  social, 
is  generally  better  than  in  that  region. 
That  the  mine  worker,  by  reason  of  these 
advantages,  is  afforded  opportunity  for 
mental  Improvement,  religious  and  social 
advantages,  which  have  gone  far  to  en- 
able him  to  lift  himself  and  his  children 
into  the  higher  spheres  of  teaching,  bank- 
ing, professional  and  business  life,  where 
his  ability  and  success  has  been  marked. 
This  is  conclusively  shown  by  the  ever 


decreasing  numbers  of  Irish  Welsh,  Eng- 
lish and  German  mine  workers  from  the 
ranks  of  our  employes. 

Discipline. 

We  shall  prove  that  discipline  is  essen- 
tial to  the  preservation  of  life  and  limb 
as  well  as  to  the  successful  production 
and  operation  of  our  properties,  and  that, 
by  reason  of  the  lack  of  proper  restraint 
upon  the  union  of  its  members,  such  dis- 
cipline has  been  materially  affected.  That 
by  reason  of  the  dangers  to  which  the 
careless  or  incompetent  are  subject,  cheer- 
ful and  prompt  compliance  with  reason- 
able orders  of  foremen  is  a requisite  to 
safe  mining.  That  this  is  as  essential  to 
these  classes  as  to  the  careful  and  com- 
petent workers  in  our  mines.  Imagine  an 
army  without  discipline  in  camp  or  in  the 
field,  and  you  will  appreciate  the  neces- 
sity of  a reasonable  regard  for  all  inter- 
ests which  we  demand  our  employes  to 
observe,  and  which  it  will  be  shown  by 
the  evidence  they  show  a lack  of  dispo- 
sition to  do. 

Production. 

We  expect  to  show  that  the  union  has 
limited  the  production  in  many  ways,  and 
that  in  consequence  of  this  there  has  fol- 
lowed a decrease  in  the  wages  of  the  men. 
That  unjustifiable  strikes  in  considerable 
numbers  have  occurred,  and  that  a still 
further  limitation  of  production  has  been 
caused  by  the  practice  of  the  boycott, 
which  has  been  extended  to  working 
places  in  the  mines,  whereby,  without 
just  cause,  the  miner  has  marked  with 
the  sign  of  his  displeasure  the  face  of  the 
working  places  with  a view  to  preventing 
any  other  workman  from  operating  the 
place.  That  in  some  instances  the  boy- 
cotted breast  has  been  mined  from  ap- 
proaches in  the  rear  without  complaint 
from  the  miner,  proving  the  unreasonable 
character  of  the  condemnation  of  the  in- 
dividual previously  mining  there. 

Contracts. 

The  reluctance  of  the  mine  workers' 
leaders  to  become  a tangible  and  respon- 
sible legal  entity  in  the  contractual  rela- 
tion, we  believe,  is  based  upon  the  reali- 
zation by  them  of  the  fact  that  they 
could  not  exist  under  those  reciprocal 
obligations  obtaining  in  the  world  of 
business  unless  their  contracts  were  fully 
and  fairly  performed.  They  evince  a de- 
sire to  enjoy  the  advantages  of  contracts 
enforcible  by  them  only,  in  the  event  of  a 
breach.  The  inequitable  character  of  this 
position  is  made  plain  by  the  experience 
of  the  Black  Diamond  Coal  company.  We 
shall  prove  the  demands  of  the  men  for 
a change  in  the  system  of  payment,  com- 
pliance by  the  company  with  these  de- 
mands; making  of  a contract  with  the 
miners  through  their  committee  of  two 
men  in  conjunction  with  two  of  the  dis- 
trict officers  of  the  union;  the  breach  of 
said  contract  and  a demand  by  the  em- 
ployes of  this  company  for  a restoration 
of  conditions  existing  prior  to  the  making 
of  the  contract,  and  demanding  the  abo- 
lition of  the  weighing  system  granted  by 
the  company  as  one  of  the  demands  men- 
tioned above. 

This  if  proven,  we  contend  will  demon- 
strate that  only  these  contracts  favorable 
and  satisfactory  to  the  men  and  only  en- 
forcible against  the  operators  are  ob- 
served, and  that,  those  that  are  not,  are 
abrogated  by  the  individuals  composing 
the  United  Mine  Workers,  without  remely 
to  the  operator  for  a breach,  an  intoler- 
able injustice.  What  did  the  union  do  to 
enforce  upon  our  employes,  its  members, 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


the  performance  cf  their  joint  obliga- 
tions? Nothing!  This  was  one  of  those 
“inviolable  and  sacred”  contracts,  of 
which  we  have  heard  so  much.  We  have 
yet  to  hear  that  this  local  has  suffered  a 
forfeiture  of  its  charter,  that  punitive 
measure  which  we  have  been  led  to  be- 
lieve, constitutes  a sufficient  assurance  of 
performance  of  this  class  of  contracts. 
Suppose  the  charter  of  the  local  had  been 
forfeited — would  the  union  have  secured 
men  to  take  the  places  abandoned  by  our 
employes?  Each  of  these  men  who  re- 
fused to  carry  out  the  contract  made  by 
this  committee,  joined  with  the  officers  of 
the  union,  would  have  sought  employ- 
ment elsewhere  and  would  have  become 
members  of  another  local  the  individuals 
of  which  would  be  working  under  a con- 
tract which  the  union  had  made  which 
was  satisfactory,  and  our  property  would 
be  necessarily  idle,  for  the  individual 
union  man  would  not  work  there,  and 
non-union  men  would  not  have  been  per- 
mitted to  do  so.  Thus,  we  contend,  we 
shall  have  succeeded  in  proving  the  futil- 
ity of  “collective  bargaining,”  from  our 
standpoint,  with  an  irresponsible  party 
of  the  other  part.  The  determination  of 
this  organization  to  remain  “thin  as  air,” 
is  a fixed  policy.  Henry  Stephenson,  a 
member  of  the  national  executive  board 
of  this  organization,  says  (see  page  92  of 
the  evidence),  quoting  bis  testimony  be- 
fore the  industrial  commission,  that  he 
is  not  in  favor  of  incorporation;  first,  be- 
cause “a  portion  of  our  members  own 
their  own  homes  and  would  have  them 
taken  from  them,”  thus  anticipating 
damages  for  breach  of  contract;  second, 
“do  not  get  justice”  (page  93);  third,  the 
burden,  if  it  went  against  us,  would  be 
upon  the  few.  Mr.  Mitchell  concurs  sub- 
stantially in  these  objections  (pages  334 
and  338.)  We  respectfully  suggest  that, 
had  this  organization  a capital  stock 
which  would  be  liable  to  be  seized  in  exe- 
cution upon  a judgment  obtained  for 
breach  of  contract,  it  would  then  be  re- 
sponsible for  any  breach  of  a contract  by 
the  members  who  would,  in  effect,  be 
stockholders  thereof.  Then  the  organiza- 
tion making  a contract  with  the  employ- 
er could  easily  provide  that  no  stock- 
holders should  be  individually  responsible 
for  any  breach  of  the  contract.  This  ex- 
emption from  responsibility  is  furnished 
the  individual  stockholder  of  the  mining 
coroporations  under  the  laws  of  the  state 
of  Pennsylvania,  except  that  the  benefi- 
cence of  our  legislature  has  accorded  to 
labor  the  added  protection  of  making 
liable  the  individual  stockholders  thereof 
personally  for  the  payment  of  the  wages 
of  labor.  Thus  the  law,  as  far  as  the  in- 
terests of  the  laboring  man  are  con- 
cerned, has  made  the  operator  himself, 
individually  responsible  for  his  wages. 
Why  should  not  this  organization  be 
charged  with  some  fair  share  of  responsi- 
bility if  it  presumes  to  treat  upon  any 
fair  basis  with  capital? 

The  Eight-Hour  Day. 

In  answer  to  the  just  criticism  of  the 
organization  for  calling  out  the  firemen 
and  pump  runners,  the  answer  has  been 
made  that,  had  the  eight-hour  day  been 
granted,  tne  mines  need  not  have  been 
flooded.  We  contend  that  this  assertion 
is  disingenuous.  We  hope  to  prove  to 
this  commission  that  where  one  company 
offered  to  grant  this  and  other  demands 
to  this  class  of  workmen,  the  organiza- 
tion, through  its  officers,  refused  to  per- 
mit firemen  to  work.  That  these  men,  or 
several  of  them,  realizing  the  inconsist- 


171 


ency  and  unfairness  of  the  position,  vol- 
untarily returned  to  their  several  posi- 
tions. We  contend  that  this  refusal  was 
calculated  to  be  punitive,  and  constituted 
a deliberate  attempt  in  this,  as  in  the 
order  calling  out  this  class  of  workmen 
generally,  in  effect  a “hold-up,”  and  that 
had  the  leaders  been  wise,  or  at  all  fair, 
they  would  have  left  these  men  at  their 
posts,  to  preserve  the  mine  in  such  condi- 
tion to  enable  its  owners  to  furnish  fuel 
to  the  public  promptly  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  strike,  as  well  as  places  of  em- 
ployment for  the  men.  Their  rights  could 
have  been  protected  at  the  end  of  a suc- 
cessful strike,  without  attempting  to  de- 
stroy at  one  blow  the  property  of  the 
employer,  the  prompt  delivery  of  the  coal 
to  the  consumer,  and  a speedy  return  of 
the  worker  to  his  place  of  employment. 
We  shall  show  that  never  in  the  history 
of  labor  disturbances  in  our  field,  when 
the  organization  was  officered  by  repre- 
sentative anthracite  workers,  was  such 
action  ever  taken.  It  has  the  appearance 
of  a deliberate  “rule  or  ruin”  policy,  in- 
augurated by  influences  foreign  to  tills 
region,  the  effect  of  which  would  have 
been,  if  successful,  to  have  insured  to  the 
complainant  bituminous  operator  lasting 
advantage  in  the  fierce  competitive  strug- 
gle characteristic  of  the  day,  a continu- 
ance for  an  extended  period  of  market 
conditions  he  found  favorable  during,  and 
since,  our  strike  for  securing  prices  for 
his  coal  much  in  excess  of  what  the  an- 
thracite producers  are  even  now  obtain- 
ing for  their  article  meritoriously  wrorth 
very  much  more.  The  condition  of  the 
consumer  and  the  mine  employe,  had  this 
order  been  made  effective,  can  better  be 
imagined  than  describd,  the  one  without 
fuel,  the  other  without  fuel  or  employ- 
ment. We  regret  the  existing  conditions 
of  coal  scarcity.  We  endeavored  to  the 
best  of  our  ability  to  produce  fuel  under 
circumstances  which  required  us  to  equip 
our  properties  with  all  the  munitions  of 
modern  defense,  searchlight,  barricade, 
barbed  wire  and  armed  guards,  which 
patrolled  our  properties  with  the  same 
watchfulness  maintained  over  camps  in 
time  of  war.  The  existing  conditions  are 
not  of  our  making,  the  struggle  we  made 
to  produce  coal  was  calculated  to  relieve 
the  distress  of  the  public.  The  first  coal 
mined  was  by  our  people,  and  vast  sums 
were  expended  in  defense  of  our  proper- 
ties in  preserving  them  so  that  coal 
could  be  produced  and  sold,  at  any  price. 
We  have  accepted  in  the  past  the  price 
fixed  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand 
as  we  have  been  reminded  by  the  com- 
panies who  purchase  our  product.  Our 
contracts  were  based  upon  a percentage 
of  the  average  price  received  and  when 
by  reason  of  the  failure  of  the  authorities 
to  protect  our  constitutional  rights,  the 
demand  was  such  as  to  entitle  us  to  take 
advantage  of  this  law  so  many  times  and 
oft  quoted  us,  we  demanded  the  price 
fixed  by  so  unerring  a principle.  We  saw 
some  of  our  competitors  in  the  anthra- 
cite region  selling  their  coal  under  these 
advantages  while  our  brothers  In  soft 
coal  were  reaping  the  harvest  sown  by 
the  passivity  of  these  authorities,  and 
we  believed  and  still  believe  that  we  were 
justified  in  our  position.  It  must  be  ad- 
mitted by  the  candid  critic  that  as  we  did 
not  contribute  to  the  cause  of  the  scar- 
city we  have  as  much  right  to  enjoy  the 
operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand as  the  farmer,  who.  without  fault, 
justly  seeks  compensation  in  price  for 
what  he  has  lost  in  crop.  The  responsi- 
bility belongs  first  to  the  United  Mine 


172 


Workers’  organization,  and  second  to  the 
authorities  who  failed  to  protect  the  non- 
union man  in  his  right  to  work.  For 
months  the  situation  was  still  further 
complicated  and  encouraged  by  certain 
politicians  and  citizens  whose  motives  we 
will  not  discuss,  but  to  whose  mischiev- 
ous influence  much  of  this  difficulty  may 
be  traced. 

Lack  of  Protection. 

Had  the  executive  authorities  afforded 
that  measure  of  protection  they  were 
bound  to  accord  all  citizens,  the  anthra- 
cite coal  producers  of  Pennsylvania  would 
have  furnished  the  usual  quota  of  coal 
and  the  strike  would  have  been  a failure. 
To  make  effective  the  order  calling  out 
the  pumpmen  and  firemen  and  to  restrain 
a large  number  of  employes  from  return- 
ing to  their  several  places  of  employ- 
ment which  the  leaders  knew  they  were 
anxious  to  do,  they  prosecuted  a series 
of  outrages  which,  in  the  language  of 
their  own  witness,  Dr.  Roberts,  who  can 
scarcely  be  charged  with  any  sympathy 
for  the  operators,  characterized  the  mur- 
der of  Bedell  and  Sweeney  (page  — ) was 
of  a character  which  could  not  “in  the 
annals  of  savagery  exceed  in  brutality  the 
violence  upon  Bedell  and  Sweeney.”  That 
this  policy  was  a fixed  one  and  well  con- 
sidered has  been  fairly  shown  and  we  will 
add  further  evidence  to  warrant  this  con- 
clusion. The  evidence  of  Father  Curren 
(page  1594),  also  a witness  for  the  com- 
plainants, who  testified  that  violence  was 
caused  by  the  attempt  of  the  operator 
to  work  the  property  or  by  workmen  to 
resume  and  when  no  attempt  was  made 
by  either  there  was  no  violence  and  that 
where  no  attempt  to  work  was  made 
guards  were  not  necessary,  also  demon- 
strate the  policy. 

As  was  well  said  by  Sir  Alfred  Wills  in 
the  Taff  Vale  Railway  company  case,  in 
criticising  the  evasions  of  the  labor 
unions,  which  seems  characteristic  of  the 
complainant  in  this  cause,  "It  is  high 
time  for  a man  occupying  the  position  I 
do  to  have  the  courage  to  express  my 
opinions  in  reference  to  these  perpetual 
attempts  to  shuffle  out  of  responsibility," 
and  “as  the  perpetual  shuffling  of  cards 
and  the  continued  production,  after  the 
manner  of  an  experienced  conjurer,  of 
the  card  of  non-responsibility;  which  is 
contrary  to  common  law,  common  sense 
and  everything  else.” 

These  attempts  to  shuffle  must  be  re- 
garded to  apply  to  the  facts  of  the  case 
under  consideration. 

It  is  at  least  daring  for  the  representa- 
tives of  this  organization  to  compare  it 
favorably  with  those  organizations  of 
railway  employes  in  America,  whose  con- 
servative, devotion  to  duty  and  strict 
observance  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of 
their  contracts,  as  well  of  the  law,  have 
deservedly  won  the  confidence  of  their 
employers. 

Let  us  for  a moment  consider  the  dif- 
ference which  j'ustifies  the  distinction  ac- 
corded these  men  by  their  employers  in 
their  contractual  relations. 

The  railroad  man  is  invariably  an 
American  citizen,  nutured  by  an  Ameri- 
can mother  to  whose  influence  and  direc- 
tion many  of  the  virtues  mentioned  are 
to  be  attributed.  Educated  in  American 
schools  and  imbued  with  American  ideas 
he  understands  the  value  of  his  liberty, 
is  law-abiding,  temperate,  tolerant  of  the 
rights  of  others  and  endeavors  to  be  rea- 
sonable. He  is  at  his  post  of  duty  in 
sunshine  and  in  storm.  Pay  days  mean 
with  him  a return  to  renewed  effort, 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 

rather  than  to  idleness.  The  daily  rou- 
tine of  his  duties  is  fully  performed  and 
his  service  is  unbroken  by  celebration. 

A large  number  of  the  mine  workers 
are  not  citizens  of  the  country  nor  do 
they  intend  ever  to  become  such.  This 
class  does  not  appreciate  or  understand 
our  institutions.  Brought  up  under  the 
influence  of  the  bayonet  they  understand 
only  its  restraint,  ignorant,  they  do  not 
recognize  the  self-restraint  which  our  free 
American  life  makes  necessary  to  the 
happiness  and  well  being  of  our  people. 
His  improved  condition  and  prosperity  by 
reason  of  his  comparatively  large  wages 
encourage  him  to  reckless  indulgence  af- 
ter pay  day.  He  celebrates  all  his  holi- 
days, religious  and  national,  as  well  as 
our  own.  He  is  regarded  properly,  as  un- 
reliable and  undesirable,  but  necessary  to 
the  production  of  coal.  The  controlling 
influence  of  these  constitute  the  dominant 
party  in  the  union. 

For  that  class  of  our  employes,  native 
or  foreign,  whose  conduct  and  character 
entitles  them  to  our  confidence,  we  have 
a high  regard. 

They  are  contributors  to  the  general 
welfare  of  the  state  and  nation;  are  patri- 
otic and  God-fearing,  and  are  a credit  to 
any  community.  We  know  and  under- 
stand them  and  our  relations  have  always 
been  most  cordial  in  character.  They  edu- 
cate their  children  and  have  worthy  rep- 
resentatives in  all  branches  of  activity  in 
our  communities.  They  have  a full  ap- 
preciation of  their  duties  to  their  em- 
ployers, desire  to  be  and  generally  are 
reasonable  in  their  demands,  and  are 
contented  and  prosperous.  They  have 
built  up  the  mining  region.  They  are 
today  in  the  minority.  Their  voices  have 
been  drowned  in  the  clamor,  their  con- 
servatism has  been  misunderstood  and 
their  motive  questioned. 

Basis  of  Payment  of  Wages. 

It  is  significant  that  the  system  of  pay- 
ing by  the  car  has  obtained  for  many 
years  without  complaint.  There  has  been 
no  demand  for  a change  made  by  our 
employes.  To  establish  a new  uniform 
unit  of  payment  is  impossible  and  will 
plunge  production  of  our  clients  into 
chaos.  The  varying  conditions  in  our 
region,  and  in  the  veins  and  parts  of 
veins  are  such  as  to  make  it  impossible 
to  adopt  such  a system.  No  inherent  in- 
justice appears  in  payment  by  the  car 
and  we  believe  it  inadvisable  and  danger- 
ous to  make  a change  at  this  time  by  a 
uniform  rule.  We  do  not  know  what  the 
result  will  be,  and  as  was  aptly  said  by 
the  late  speaker  of  the  house,  “When  you 
don't  know  what  to  do.  don't  do  it.”  We 
have  not  objected  and  will  not  object  to 
a check  docking  boss,  if  the  men  think 
it  desirable  for  them  to  have  one.  We 
shall  prove  that  in  many  instances  they 
have  had  such  a representative  and  after 
a short  time  they  have  refused  to  con- 
tribute to  the  payment  of  his  wages  and 
he  has  been  dropped. 

The  weighing  system  is  not  satisfactory 
where  it  has  been  adopted,  as  was  testi- 
fied to  by  one  of  complainant's  own  wit- 
nesses, and  we  shall  show  that  at  least  in 
one  instance  where  it  was  adopted  since 
the  last  strike  the  men  asked  to  have  it 
abolished.  The  adoption  of  this  system 
will  in  some  places  be  impossible,  in  oth- 
ers only  at  unreasonable  expense,  and 
the  effect  in  most  places  will  be  to  slow 
down  the  production,  a disadvantage 
common  to  employer  and  employe.  We 
believe  the  demand  contemplates  the 
loading  of  Impurities  in  small  compass  of 


great  weight,  constituting  a double  dis- 
advantage and  placing  a premium  upon 
such  action. 

Poverty  the  Effect. 

It  is  an  axiom,  and  applies  to  all  avo- 
cations. Poverty  is  the  effect;  of  the 
cause  we  have  to  say  that  here  as  else- 
where some  are  poor  unfortunates  whos? 
sad  condition  is  not  to  be  charged  to 
their  vices  or  their  faults,  but  here  as 
everywhere,  to  the  truth  seeker  will  be 
disclosed  the  fact  that  the  hand-maidens 
of  independence  are  frugality,  sobriety, 
ability  and  industry.  Such  poverty  as  ex- 
ists can  generally  be  traced  to  intemper- 
ance and  the  disregard  of  these  essential 
reo.uisites. 

As  has  been  well  said  by  an  observant 
and  thoughtful  writer,  “We  shall  under- 
stand more  thoroughly  that  the  causes  of 
vice  and  crime  are  the  chief  causes  also 
of  poverty'  and  all  other  social  evils.” 

Conduct  of  the  Struggle. 

Why  should  not  organized  labor,  as  ex- 
emplified by  this  organization,  arise  out 
of  the  fog  of  oppression  and  tyranny  now 
enveloping  it. 

Recently  the  representatives  of  400.000 
of  English  workmen  met  to  formulate 
plans  and  means  to  combat  the  evil  ef- 
fects which  organized  labor  has  brought 
on  that  country.  Why  should  this  union, 
by  constant  assaults  upon  production,  and 
the  means  thereof,  bring  upon  the  coun- 
try a condition  which  will  sacrifice  our 
ability  to  successfully  compete  with  oth- 
er nations?  Trade  inevitably  gravitates 
to  the  cheapest  market,  other  things 
equal. 

The  economic  production  in  Germany 
threatens  the  existence  of  our  commercial 
supremacy.  Every  member  of  .the  Ger- 
man family  contributes  his  and  her  quota 
of  endeavor,  cheapening  production.  Last 
year  our  imports  increased  10  per  cent., 
and  our  exports  decreased  7 per  cent., 
and  this  notwithstanding  our  large  ex- 
ports of  grain.  How  far  the  economic 
conditions  of  our  home  market  and  for- 
eign trade  will  be  able  to  sustain  the  ever 
increasing  cost  of  production  is  a ques- 
tion of  vital  interest  to  both  employer 
and  employe.  The  cost  of  fuel  enters 
largely  into  these  considerations. 

There  need  be  no  straining  of  the  pro- 
phetic vision  to  foretell  the  results  of  a 
continuance  by  trade  unions  of  the  policy 
which  characterized  the  conduct  of  this 
struggle.  No  government  can  long  en- 
dure, or  deserve  to  survive,  which  fails 
to  protect  the  rights  of  its  citizens  against 
foes  from  without,  or  to  preserve  their 
constitutional  rights  from  assaults  from 
within,  by  whomsoever  made  or  upon 
whatsoever  account.  Drunk  with  power, 
realizing  the  exigencies  of  the  political 
situation,  as  viewed  by  the  practical 
politician,  the  proximity'  of  a state  elec- 
tion more  immediately  vital  to  him  than 
the  graver  considerations  concerning  the 
protection  of  the  rights  of  a few  indi- 
viduals against  the  assaults  of  the  many 
■who  held  the  franchise,  the  representa- 
tives of  the  organization  timed  their  de- 
mands, and  tempered  the  discipline  of  the 
politician  to  the  exigencies  requisite  to 
the  demands  they  had  made.  Therefore, 
we  think  that  graver  considerations  than 
wages  or  hours  of  labor  are  involved  in 
the  controversy  before  this  honorable 
commission,  and  at  the  proper  time  we 
expect  to  file  requests  for  findings  upon, 
not  only  the  matters  of  lesser  import- 
ance, but  upon  those  of  vaster  signific- 
ance upon  the  observance  of  which,  in 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


173 


a patriotic  and  law-abiding  manner,  we 
believe,  depends  alike  the  security  of  per- 
sons and  property  and  the  perpetuity  of  a 
nation,  the  example  of  which  has  driven 
from  this  continent  all  monarchial  forms 
of  government  save  two,  and  which  is 
yet  to  blaze  the  way  the  world  over  to 
that  form  of  government  depending  al- 
most wholly  upon  the  individual  self-re- 
straint, under  a government  in  which 
every  citizen  is  a sovereign. 


At  the  close  of  today’s  session  the 
commissioners  and  lawyers  had  a con- 
ference regarding  the  matter  of  argu- 
ments. The  commissioners  announced 
that  they  would  limit  the  time  for 
arguments  to  four  days,  and  leave  it  to 
the  lawyers  to  decide  among  themselves 
how  the  time  should  be  divided.  It  was 
suggested  that  the  big  companies,  the 
non-union  men,  the  union  men  and  the 


Independents  each  take  a day.  Mr.  Dar- 
row  objected  to  this  apportionment.  He 
claimed  that  it  was  a case  of  every- 
body against  the  union  miners,  and 
that  the  latter  should  have  one-half  the 
time.  The  lawyers  are  to  get  together 
later  to  discuss  the  question.  If  they 
do  not  agree,  the  commission  will  make 
the  allotment. 


Proceedings  of  Friday,  Jan.  23. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  24.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  23. — With  alacrity 
apparently  very  gratifying  to  the  com- 
missioners, the  cases  of  the  individual 
operators  of  the  Lackawanna-Wyoming 
region  were  rushed  through  almost  to 
completion  at  today’s  two  sessions  of 
the  mine  strike  commission. 

Attorneys  Alfred  Hand,  H.  C.  Rey- 
nolds, I.  H.  Burns  who  are  handling 
these  cases  concluded  that  the  com- 
missioners had  heard  about  enough 
concerning  restrictions,  and  impair- 
ment of  discipline  by  the  union,  vio- 
lence during  the  strike  and  the  like, 
and  accordingly  put  on  the  stand  only 
the  cream  of  the  hundreds  of  witnesses 
who  had  been  summoned  to  testify  in 
behalf  of  their  fifteen  clients.  They 
will  'rely  upon  their  statistical  testi- 
mony to  convince  the  commissioners 
that  they  are  paying  wages  as  fair  if 
not  fairer  than  any  in  the  region. 

Mr.  Darrow  did  not  enter  into  any 
extended  cross-examinations.  He 
agreed  that  the  wage  statistics  were 
the  crucial  things  as  far  as  the  in- 
dividual operators  are  concerned.  The 
commissioners  expressed  themselves  of 
the  same  opinion  the  day  before. 

The  companies  to  put  in  evidence 
were  the  William  Connell  Coal  com- 
pany, of  Scranton;  the  Clear  Spring 
Coal  company,  of  Pittston;  the  Black 
Diamond  Coal  company,  of  Carbon- 
dale;  the  Stevens  Coal  company,  of 
Exeter:  the  People’s  Coal  company,  of 
Scranton,  and  Jermyn  & Co.,  of  Scran- 
ton. 

Case  of  William  Connell  & Co. 

The  case  of  William  Connell  & Co., 
of  Scranton  was  the  first  to  be  present- 
ed. Ex-Supreme  Court  Justice  Alfred 
Hand,  one  of  the  stockholders  of  the 
company,  was  associated  with  Mr. 
Reynolds  and  Mr.  Burns  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  case. 

Only  one  witness  was  put  on  the 
stand.  He  was  Howell  Harris,  the  com- 
pany’s mining  engineer,  and  assistant 
superintendent  at  the  National  colliery. 

He  testified  that  he  has  been  a min- 
ing engineer  for  twelve  years,  and  that 
he  educated  himself  by  studying  nights 
after  doing  his  day’s  work  in  the 
mines.  His  father  is  a miner,  who  be- 
gan in  the  anthracite  region,  went  to 
the  bituminous  region  and  then  re- 
turned to  the  anthracite  region,  be- 
cause the  conditions  in  the  bitumin- 
ous regiors  were  the  less  favorable. 


The  witness  also  had  worked  in  the 
bituminous  region  and  considered  the 
work  much  more  arduous  than  in  the 
anthracite  region. 

The  witness  knew  positively  there 
was  no  blacklist  obtaining  with  his 
company  and  was  not  aware  of  its  ex- 
istence in  any  other  company. 

Discipline  has  deteriorated  very  ma- 
terially, he  said,  since  the  1900  strike. 
The  boys  are  more  insubordinate  and 
the  men  more  indifferent  as  to  the  re- 
gularity with  which  they  work.  If  a 
miner  feels  inclined  to  lose  a day,  he 
stays  away  from  work,  without  con- 
sulting his  employer.  No  amount  of 
complaining  on  the  part  of  the  em- 
ployer seems  to  remedy  this  ill. 

Miners,  he  said,  have  relatively  as 
good  an  opportunity  for  self-improve- 
ment as  any  class  of  workmen.  They 
have  considerable  idle  time,  which  can 
be  utilized  in  any  way  they  may  feel 
disposed  to  use  it. 

His  company  could  handle  much 
more  coal  than  it  gets  from  its  men,  he 
said.  It  has  plenty  of  cars  and  is  able 
to  readily  distribute  them. 

Asked  what  he  thought  of  the  propo- 
sition to  pay  miners  by  weight,  the 
witness  said  the  difference  as  to  the 
merits  and  defects  of  per-car  and 
weight  systems  has  not  been  thought 
of  sufficient  importance  to  warrant  ser- 
ious consideration  of  a change.  The 
employes  of  his  company  have  never 
made  specific  complaint  against  the 
per-car  system.  Payment  by  the  per- 
car  system,  the  witness  believed,  is 
simpler,  more  direct,  and  on  the  whole, 
more  equitable.  Under  the  per-car 
system,  the  miner  knows  when  he 
leaves  his  chamber  what  his  earnings 
were  for  the  day.  He  can  tell  whether 
or  not  there  ought  to  be  deductions  for 
impurities. 

There  is  no  complaint  about  docking 
at  this  colliery.  The  docking  boss,  the 
witness  understood,  is  a member  of  the 
union. 

About  Boycotting. 

Asked  about  the  boycotting  of  cham- 
bers, the  witness  said: 

“I  know  of  two  or  three  instances 
that  I can  enumerate  now.  We  have 
recently  had  one  where  there  were  four 
chambers  in  which  the  miners  claim 
that  we  expected  them  to  load  four  cars 
— ‘hat  four  cars  should  constitute  a days 
work  for  the  miner  and  laborer.  The 


men  thought  that  four  cars  were  too 
much,  and  they  insisted  that  they 
would  not  load  any  more  than  three 
cars,  and  that  three  cars  should  con- 
stitute a day’s  work;  and  the  chambers 
were  stopped.  The  men  found  employ- 
ment in  another  section  of  the  mine  as 
laborers.  After  working  a week  or  so 
the  superintendent  decided  that  unless 
they  would  remove  the  obstacle  to  our 
putting  anybody  else  in  those  four 
chambers,  they  should  not  work  at  the 
mines.  We  had  a conference  about 
two  weeks  ago,  and  one  of  the  repre- 
sentatives from  the  district  committee 
came  with  the  men.  The  matter  was 
argued,  and  they  finally  concluded  that 
they  would  allow  us  to  put  men  in  the 
four  chambers,  and  remove  the  con- 
demnation of  them.  We  did  so;  the 
men  are  working  In  other  sections  of 
the  mine,  and  things  are  proceeding 
harmoniously.” 

“Are  the  men  who  took  the  places 
abandoned  by  these  men  making  fair 
or  average  wages  in  those  places”  Mr. 
Reynolds  asked. 

"The  are.  Under  our  system  of  pay- 
ing, where  the  coal  is  clean,  quite  fre- 
quently we  pay  the  miner  $2.47  for  every 
three  or  four  cars  that  come  out  clean, 
and  we  pay  the  laborer  $2.09.” 

“We  have  two  other  instances,”  the 
witness  went  on  to  say.  "One  was  in 
the  summer  of  1901.  A man  named 
Anthony  Burk  was  working  in  the 
gangway  at  the  price  of  $2.50  per  yard. 
The  local  concluded  that  that  was  not 
enough  for  him  and  they  stopped  him 
from  working,  told  the  drivers  not  to 
give  him  cars.  He  was  unable  to  work 
for  a period  of  six  or  eight  weeks.  He 
decided  that  he  would  bring  suit 
against  the  members  of  the  local,  al- 
though he  was  a member  of  it  himself, 
and  I think  he  engaged  an  attorney  for 
that  purpose;  but  they  finally  recon- 
sidered their  decision  and  allowed  him 
to  go  to  work.  And  we  have  had  an- 
other instance  of  the  same  character 
recently.” 

“The  place  where  he  was  working, 
then,  was  satisfactory  to  him?”  said 
Mr.  Reynolds. 

"Yes,  sir.” 

"But  it  was  not  satisfactory  to  the 
local  to  which  he  belongs?" 

“No.  sir.” 

“And  they  finally  permitted  him  to 
go  back  to  his  place  to  work?" 

"Yes,  sir.” 


174 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


"How  are  boycotted  places  marked?” 
"They  put  four  holes  in  the  face  of 
the  coal  near  the  top  of  the  roof,  where 
they  can  be  seen  easily.” 

Commissioner  Clark:  Do  you  know 

whether  this  man  made  any  complaint 
to  the  local  as  to  the  price  he  was  get- 
ting for  that  yardage? 

The  Witness:  No,  sir;  I am  not  aware 
he  did;  he  said  he  was  perfectly  satis- 
fied with  the  price. 

"What,  if  any,  objection  is  there  to 
payment  by  lineal  yard  measure?” 
asked  Mr.  Reynolds.  “Why  would  it 
not  work  in  the  northern  anthracite 
field,  where  they  are  mining  flat  veins?” 
“I  think,”  said  the  witness,  “there 
would  be  a great  loss  in  the  amount  of 
coal  that  would  be  blown  from  the 
seam.  If  you  attempt  to  pay  men  by 
the  yard,  I think  the  amount  of  coal 
that  would  be  available  for  market 
purposes  would  be  a great  deal  less. 
You  would  not  get  as  much  of  the  orig- 
inal deposit  as  under  the  present  sys- 
tem, because  the  miner  would  have  no 
inducement  to  load  the  coal  on;  his  ob- 
ject would  be  to  make  yardage.” 

“If  he  made  yardage  the  company 
could  have  a laborer  to  load  the  coal,” 
suggested  Judge  Gray. 

“I  don’t  think  that  would  be  a very 
practicable  scheme,”  said  the  witness. 
“Why?”  asked  the  judge. 

“You  would  have  two  men  independ- 
ent of  each  other  working  in  that  cham- 
ber; there  would  be  many  circum- 
stances arising  in  which  there  might  be 
a lot  of  friction  engendered  between  the 
two  men.  In  the  first  place,  suppose 
the  laborer  would  complain  that  the 
miner  put  too  much  powder  in  a hole 
and  blew  it  too  far  from  the  road?” 
“But  suppose  he  did  not?” 

“Then,  I look  at  it  in  this  way.  If  a 
man  were  paid  by  the  yard,  suppose  he 
had  a couple  of  cars  lying  a couple  of 
feet  away  from  the  road.  Suppose  he 
is  not  paid  for  that  coal,  what  induce- 
ment would  there  be  to  shovel  it  back 
to  the  car?  Why  could  he  not  throw  a 
couple  of  pieces  of  rock  on  it  and  leave 
it  out  of  sight?” 

Docking  at  the  National. 

The  witnesses'  direct  examination 
concluded  with  the  statement  that  the 
docking  at  the  National  colliery  was 
less  than  two  and  seven-tenths  per 
cent.,  despite  the  fact  that  the  veins 
are  thin  and  pretty  well  worked  out. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  Mr.  Harris  for  an 
opinion  on  the  plan  of  paying  the 
miner  according  to  the  weight  of  the 
coal  as  it  stands  in  the  railroad  car, 
ready  for  market.  He  replied  that  he 
did  not  think  it  an  equitable  system, 
ft  was  not  fair  to  the  good  miner.  A 
miner  who  sent  out  practically  pure 
coal  might  have  to  share  in  a rebate  to 
the  company,  resultant  from  the  dirty 
coal  other  miners  sent  out.  The  sys- 
tem was  also  objectionable,  he  de- 
clared, because  it  threw  too  much  re- 
sponsiblity  on  the  judgment  of  the 
docking  bosses,  who  would  be  called 


ui  on  to  pro-rate  back  to  the  miner 
the  excess  or  lack  of  “full  coal.” 

The  trouble  his  company  had  about 
the  four  boycotted  chambers,  the  wit- 
ness admitted,  had  been  settled  amica- 
bly and  in  less  than  half  an  hour, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  W.  J. 
Thomas,  an  executive  board  member  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers.  He  found 
Mr.  Thomas  to  be  jusr  and  reasonable. 

Being  further  examined  by  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds, the  witness  identified  the  due 
bills  of  three  miners,  which  were  oi- 
fered  to  demonstrate  that  the  differ- 
ences in  individual  industry  and  effi- 
ciency are  accountable  for  much  of  the 
variance  in  miners’  wages. 

The  three  miners  in  question  worked 
in  adjoining  chambers.  Louis  Novack, 
who  worked  in  the  middle  chamber, 
earned  $65  in  24  days,  with  an  expendi- 
ture of  $13  for  powder.  Thomas  Rich- 
ardson, who  worked  to  his  right, 
earned  $36.69  in  18  days,  spending  $6.30 
for  powder.  George  Jennings,  who  had 
the  chamber  to  the  left,  earned  $19.76 
in  16  days. 

The  three  men  were  equally  exper- 
ienced and  had  absolutely  equal  op- 
portunities of  making  money.  Per- 
sonal indifference  on  the  part  of  Jen- 
nings and  Richardson,  the  witness  be- 
lieved, was  accountable  for  their  small 
earnings.  He  knew  Novack  to  be  in- 
dustrious. 

On  cross  examination,  the  witness 
said  he  did  not  know  but  that  Richard- 
son and  Jennings  might  have  been  sicic 
during  a part  of  the  month  covered  by 
the  calculation.  There  was  also  a re- 
mote possibility,  Mr.  Harris  further  ad- 
mitted, that  one  or  the  other,  or  maybe 
both  of  them,  had  encountered  a 
‘fault”  in  his  chamber  which  was  nol 
encountered  in  Novack’s  chamber. 

Judge  Hand,  at  this  juncture,  put  ir 
further  documentary  evidence  regard- 
ing health  of  miners,  including  a work 
by  IT  of.  C.  C.  Abbott,  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Pennsylvania,  in  whicn  it  is 
stated  that  there  is  a very  low  mm- 
talily  among  coal  miners. 

Trouble  at  Clear  Spring. 

George  O.  Thomas,  inside  foreman 
for  the  Clear  Spring  Coal  company  at 
West  Pittston,  told  that  the  number 
of  cars,  per  shift  has  been  decreased 
by  the  coming  of  the  union,  and  that, 
in  his  opinion,  the  restriction  is  for 
the  purpose  of  gaining  a raise  in  the 
price  per  car.  As  a result  of  the  re- 
striction, the  company  had  to  increase 
the  number  of  its  contract  miners  from 
140  to  170.  If  the  miners  would  work 
eight  hours,  he  said,  it  would  be  of 
great  advantage  to  themselves  and  the 
company.  The  earnings  of  the  one 
would  be  increased,  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction to  the  other  decreased.  As  it 
Is,  the  miners  do  not  average  more 
than  six  and  one-half  hours. 

Chambers  have  been  boycotted  at  his 
mine  because  of  the  discharge  of  em- 
ployes or  disagreements  between  the 
foreman  and  the  miner  as  to  prices. 


The  company  took  out  the  coal  remain- 
ing in  these  chambers  by  driving  an 
opening  from  the  rear,  with  the  aid  of 
company  miners,  and  no  objection  was 
raised. 

The  witness  told  of  a number  of 
petty  strikes  resulting  from  trivial 
causes.  The  driver  boy’s  were  the  most 
frequent  strikers.  If  one  of  their  num- 
ber were  disciplined,  all  of  them  would 
go  on  strike. 

The  dockage  at  this  colliery’  was 
2 7-10  per  cent  in  1901.  The  docking 
boss  is  an  old-time  miner  and  there  has 
never  been  any  complaint  against  him 
or  his  work. 

Attorney  Reynolds  here  offered  in 
evidence  an  anonymous,  threatening 
letter,  received  by  the  witness  since  the 
close  of  the  strike.  Mr.  Darrow  ob- 
jected to  its  contents  being  disclosed, 
because  of  its  being  anonymous. 

“I’ve  received  lots  of  similar  letters 
since  I came  into  this  case,”  said  Mr. 
Darrow.  “I  understand  the  commis- 
sioners have  also  received  some.” 

“Yes,”  assented  Judge  Gray,  "We’ve 
gotten  them,  too,  any  number  of 
them.” 

Later,  Judge  Gray  qualified  this  by’ 
saying  the  letters  the  commissioners 
received  were  not  "threatening,”  but 
simply  anonymous.  The  Judge  sus- 
tained Mr.  Darrotv’s  objection  to  the 
introduction  of  the  letter. 

Semi-monthly  Pay. 

The  witness  was  of  the  opinion  that 
the  semi-monthly  pay  was  a rather  un- 
desirable institution,  from  every’  stand- 
point. As  an  instance  of  its  undesir- 
ability he  told  that  his  company  paid 
last  Saturday  and  on  Monday  the  e 
were  fifty’-one  contract  miners  absent 
from  work.  Some  of  them  were  also 
absent  on  Tuesday. 

The  weighing  of  coal,  he  asserted, 
would  be  impracticable  at  his  colliery, 
because  of  the  physical  impossibility  cf 
Installing  a weighing  plant  in  the 
breaker.  To  weigh  the  coal  under- 
ground would  entail  a great  expense, 
as  hoisting  is  done  from  three  levels. 
Three  sets  of  scales,  three  weighmasters 
and  three  check-weighmen  would  be 
necessitated. 

The  weighing  sy’stem  of  payment  was 
also  undesirable,  he  declared,  because  it 
would  have  a tendency  to  encourage 
the  miners  to  send  out  more  impurities 
than  they  now  send  out.  and  thereby 
Increase  the  cost  of  preparation. 

Payment  by  yardage  was  objection- 
able. he  said,  because  it  would  encour- 
age the  miner  to  cut  coal  with  no  con- 
sideration of  the  kind  of  coal  his  cham- 
ber would  produce.  Under  the  per  car 
system  the  miner  sends  out  the  big- 
gest sizes  possible.  Under  the  yardage 
system  it  would  be  immaterial  to  him 
how  much  marketable  coal  was  pro- 
duced; and,  as  a consequence,  he  would 
have  no  object  in  avoiding  the  break- 
ing up  of  the  coal  into  fine  pieces. 

On  cross-examination,  the  witness  ad- 
mitted that  on  one  occasion,  when  the 


driver  boys  struck  for,  some  trivial 
cause,  an  officer  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  sent  them  back  to  work  the 
next  day.  He  also  admitted  that  since 
the  issuance  of  the  Mitchell  circular 
urging  the  men  to  do  all  they  can  to 
relieve  the  coal  famine,  the  men  have 
worked  ten  instead  of  nine  hours. 

Louis  Harrop,  a fireman  at  the  Clear 
Spring,  testified  that  he  and  the  six 
other  firemen  did  not  want  to  obey  the 
call  of  the  union  to  strike  on  June  2, 
because  they  had  been  granted  an 

eight-hour  day,  and  a bonus  of  52  cents 
a day  while  the  strike  should  last.  They 
waited  on  the  Central  Labor  union  at 
Pittston  and  an  officer  of  the  organ- 
ization telephoned  their  protest  to 

President  Mitchell’s  headquarters  at 
Wilkes-Barre.  The  word  came  back: 

“Come  out  immediately,”  and  they 
came  out. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Darrow 
contented  himself  with  an  admission 
that  the  engineers  and  pumprunners  at 
this  colliery  had  not  been  granted  the( 
eight-hour  day. 

David  W,  Evans,  superintendent  of 

the  Stevens  Coal  company’s  colliery  at 
Exeter,  has  been  a miner  for  thirty- 
seven  years  in  this  country  and  a num- 
ber of  years  in  Wales.  He  has  the  dis- 
tinction of  having  commenced  his  mine 
career  at  the  age  of  six  years  and 
seven  months,  keeping  candles  lit  for 
his  father  in  a Welsh  mine. 

Does  Not  Approve  Certificates. 

The  witness  did  not  give  his  approval 
to  the  law  requiring  miners  to  have 
certificates. 

“It  keeps  out  good  miners,”  said  he. 
“The  best  miners  from  the  old  coun- 
try came  here  before  the  passage  of 
this  law.  Now  they  won’t  come  here. 
They  don’t  want  to  work  as  a laborer 
for  two  years  before  they  can  get  a 
chamber.  In  the  old  days,  they  would 
have  to  work  only  four  or  five  days 
before  they  could  get  a place.” 

“That’s  protection  to  American  labor, 
isn’t  it?”  queried  Judge  Gray.  “1 
understand  you  believe  in  that  sort  of 
thing  in  Pennsylvania,  don’t  you?” 

“Yes  it’s  a protection  in  some  ways,” 
answered  the  witness,  without  explain- 
ing. 

Mr.  Reynolds  offered  to  show  by  the 
witness  that  since  1877,  the  companies 
of  the  upper  region  have  granted  in- 
creases of  forty  per  cent,  and  imposed 
decreases  of  thirty-five  per  cent.,  leav- 
ing the  net  increase  five  per  cent,  while 
the  cost  of  living  has  decreased  by  a 
very  large  per  centage. 

Mr.  Darrow  objected  to  going  into  a 
question  of  wages  for  a period  prior  to 
1900,  as  it  had  been  agreed  that  that 
year  should  be  the  basis  orf  computa- 
tion. Judge  Gray  agreed  with  Mr. 
Darrow  that  the  offer  was  not  relevant. 
Attorney  McCarthy  remarked  that  if 
the  companies  would  grant  the  1871 
wages,  the  miners  would  withdraw 
every  demand  before  the  commission. 
“Give  us  the  1871  wages,”  said  Mr. 
McCarthy,  “and  we’ll  shut  up  shop  and 
go  home.” 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

Superintendent  Evans  told  that  of  the 
eighteen  young  miners  who  were  in  his 
class  at  night  school,  when  he  first 
came  to  this  country,  twelve  are  mine 
superintendents,  and  two  are  doctors. 

“If  you  want  to  see  some  of  their 
sons,”  he  added,  “go  to  the  court  house 
}n  Wilkes-Barre.”  This  was  interpret- 
ed to  mean  that  they  are  lawyers. 

The  dockage  at  his  colliery  is  four 
per  cent.,  he  said,  nothwithstanding 
that  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  all  the 
material  sent  out  of  the  shaft  goes  to 
the  refuse  dump.  The  loss  to  coal  in 
going  through  the  breaker,  he  said,  was 
between  twelve  and  one-half  and  fifteen 
per  cent. 

The  per-car  system,  he  believed  was 
the  fairest  and  most  satisfactory  of  all. 
He  never  heard  any  complaints  against 
it  and  his  men  never  asked  for  a 
change  to  the  weighing  system. 

Mr.  Darrow,  on  cross-examination, 
adduced  some  things,  he  would  proba- 
ly  just  as  lief  have  left  unearthed.  A 
team-driver  refused  to  assist  in  sprag- 
ging  on  a steep  plane,  as  it  had  been 
customary  for  him  to  do.  He  claimed 
he  ought  to  get  runners’  pay  if  he  oc- 
casionally did  spragging.  The  driver 
boss  discharged  him,  and  all  the  driv- 
ers struck.  The  contract  miners’  ex- 
postulated with  the  boys  and  they  re- 
fused to  work. 

Mule  the  Cause  of  Trouble. 

Only  last  week  a foreman  scolded  a 
boy  because  he  abused  a mule.  The 
boy  told  it  about  that  he  had  been 
badly  abused  and  insulted  and  the 
driver  boys  all  decided  to  strike.  The 
witness  and  the  foreman  tried  to  argue 
with  them  that  they  had  no  cause  of 
complaint;  that  the  boy  had  simply 
been  scolded  for  gross  negligence,  and 
that  he  was  not  even  threatened  with 
discharge.  The  boys  wouldn’t  listen  to 
this  line  of  reasoning.  They  were  bent 
on  striking  and  in  a body  they  started 
for  the  shaft. 

On  the  way,  they  encountered  John 
Kelly  an  old  miner.  He  inquired  what 
the  trouble  was  and  learning  the  de- 
tails, told  the  boys  they  had  no  “kick” 
coming,  and  that  they  had  better  go 
back  to  work.  They  went  back  to 
work. 

“Kelly  has  more  control  over  our  men 
than  we  have,”  remarked  the  witness. 

John  Cook,  outside  foreman  at  the 
Jermyn  No.  2 colliery  in  Old  Forge, 
testified  that  the  docking  is  four  per 
cent.,  and  the  rock  that  goes  to  the 
dump  is  alone  five  per  cent.  The  com- 
pany will  not  employ  boys  who  are 
apparently  under  the  legal  age,  al- 
though they  may  have  certificates  from 
their  parents,  setting  forth  that  they 
are  of  age. 

The  witness  is  a school  director  of 
Old  Forge.  Many  of  the  teachers  are 
graduates  of  normal  schools.  All  of 
them  are  sons  and  daughters  of  miners. 
The  miners  have  all  to  do  with  the 
spending  of  school  funds,  and  most  of 
the  school  taxes  are  paid  by  the  coal 
companies. 


175 

The  first  witness  of  the  afternoon  was 
Henry  Lubken,  mining  engineer  for 
Jermyn  & Co.  He  spent  thirteen  year* 
in  the  bituminous  region.  Bituminous 
mining,  he  declared,  was  much  more 
arduous  than  mining  of  anthracite. 
Even  with  machines,  the  bituminous 
miner  must  lie  prostrate  on  one  side  to 
dig  coal.  Oftentimes  he  must  lie  in 
water,  both  in  machine  and  pick  min- 
ing. The  work  of  the  bituminous  miner 
is  so  arduous,  the  witness  declared,  that 
only  young  men  can  do  it.  In  the  an- 
thracite region  there  are  hundreds  of 
miners  sixty  years  of  age. 

The  witness  has  seen  a soft  coal  mine 
opened  up  for  $150.  The  average  cost 
of  opening  a soft  coal  mine  is  $15,000. 
The  average  cost  of  opening  an  anthra- 
cite mine  is  half  a million. 

W.  G.  Thomas,  superintendent  of  the 
Black  Diamond  Coal  company,  of  Car- 
bondale,  testified  his  company  pays  by 
weight.  The  cars  contain  only  thirty- 
eight  cubic  feet. 

During  the  past  two  years  discipline 
has  been  greatly  affected  at  his  mine. 
Since  the  close  of  the  last  strike,  even, 
there  have  been  Innumerable  petty 
strikes. 

As  an  instance  of  the  impairment  of 
discipline,  he  related  an  experience  he 
had  with  a union  miner  named  Wize. 

John  Mitchell  His  Boss. 

Wize  called  a non-union  man  a 
“scab”  and  made  threats  towards  him 
while  at  the  mine.  When  the  matter 
was  reported  to  the  foreman,  Wize  was 
called  to  account.  He  told  the  foreman 
to  “go  to  hell,”  adding,  “John  Mitchell 
is  my  boss.” 

Superintendent  Thomas  called  the 
man  into  the  office  and  told  him  he 
would  have  to  apologize  to  the  foreman 
and  promise  to  him  that  he  ■would  not 
again  molest  any  other  workmen  on 
the  company’s  property,  be  he  union  or 
non-union  man.  Wize  arrogantly  told 
the  superintendent  he  would  do  nothing 
of  the  kind. 

“Then  you  can’t  work  here  any 
longer,”  said  the  superintendent. 

"Oh,  yes.  I’ll  work,  all  right.”  said 
Wize. 

“No,  you  won't,  Tom,”  said  the  super- 
intendent. 

“Well,  I’ll  load  the  coal  I've  got  cut." 

“No,  you  can't  go  into  the  mine  till 
you  agree  to  what  I have  proposed.” 

“If  I can’t  go  into  the  place,  no  one 
else  can.  I'll  put  the  boycott  mark  on 
it.” 

“You  won’t  do  that,  either.  You  can't 
go  into  the  mines  at  all.  We’ll  send 
your  tools  out  to  you.” 

“Very  well,  then,  you’ll  have  a strike 
here  in  a very  few  days.” 

A few  days  later  the  local  met  and  a 
committee  was  appointed  to  see  the 
superintendent  about  the  case  of  Wize. 
Two  of  the  company’s  employes  and 
two  district  officers  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  waited  on  Mr.  Thomas.  The 
matter  could  not  be  compromised,  and 
a strike  was  imminent. 

Before  the  next  meeting  of  the  local, 
one  of  the  miners,  a close  personal 


176 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


friend  of  the  superintendent,  plead  for 
the  reinstatement  of  Wize.  Superin- 
tendent Thomas  insisted  on  Wize  living 
up  to  the  terms  he  had  imposed.  The 
next  day  the  personal  friend  and  Wize 
came  around.  Wize  apologized,  prom- 
ised to  refrain  from  molesting  non- 
union men,  and  kissed  the  hands  of 
Superintendent  Thomas  and  the  medi- 
ator.. 

Union  Restrictions. 

Regarding  restriction,  Superintendent 
Thomas  testified  that  in  December  last 
he  went  to  one  of  the  company’s  best 
miners,  George  Millett,  and  asked  him 
why  he  was  not  sending  out  more  coal. 
Millett  admitted  he  could  easily  send 
out  more  coal,  but  “dassn’t  do  it.”  He 
explained:  “The  union  won't  let  us.” 

"Yes,”  said  the  superintendent,  “but 
President  Mitchell  stated  to  the  mine 
commission  that  the  union  does  not  re- 
strict output  and  that  a man’s  capacity 
is  not  limited  by  the  union.” 

"Your  right  he  did,”  said  Millett, 
and  since  then.  Superintendent  Thomas 
says,  Millett  has  been  ’sending  out 
more  coal. 

A few  days  later,  a committee  of  the 
local  waited  on  Millett  and  admon- 
ished him  against  sending  out  more 
than  seven  cars.  Millett  did  not  heed 
the  admonition.  He  is  sending  out  as 
many  cars  as  he  feels  inclined  to  load, 
some  days  as  high  as  ten. 

Superintendent  Thomas  told  of  a con- 
tract he  had  made  with  his  miners  and 
their  failure  to  live  up  to  it.  They 
wanted  to  change  from  the  per-car  to 
weighing  system  and  at  considerable 
expense  and  inconvenience  to  the  com- 
pany, put  in  a weighing  plant.  June  16, 
11(01,  the  new  system  went  into  opera- 
tion June  19,  three  days  later,  all 
except  three  of  the  miners  in  one  of 
the  veins  repudiated  the  contract,  and, 
without  waiting  for  a possible  adjust- 
ment. quit  work.  They  claimed  they 
were  nor  making  as  much  as  they  wrere 
making  under  the  per-car  system,  and 
demanded  a return  to  the  per-car  sys- 
tem. The  miners  in  the  other  veins 
were  satisfied  with  the  new  system  and 
the  company  decided  to  maintain  it. 

Every  man,  including  the  watchmen, 
W'ere  members  of  the  union.  When  the 
1902  strike  order  came,  all  were  called 
out,  including  the  watchmen.  Superin- 
tendent Thomas  protested  to  National 
Organizer  Henry  Collins  that  it  was 
not  fair  or  just  to  prevent  him  from 
securing  watchmen,  as  the  insurance 
policy  was  nullified  by  their  absence 
Mr.  Collins  could  do  nothing  about  it. 
President  Mitchell  was  appealed  to, 
and  he  declined  to  interfere. 

May  16,  1902,  after  the  strike  had  been 
on  a month,  a miner  went  in  for  his 
tools.  A cave  occurred  and  he  was  im- 
prisoned. Striking  employes  were  sum- 
moned and  the  man  was  rescued. 

Superintendent  Thomas  tried  to  get 
the  men  to  clean  up  the  cave  and  se- 
cure lhe  place.  They  refused.  Water 
was  dammed  up  by  the  debris,  and 
v hen-  it  broke,  of  its  own  force,  it 


swept  out  the  drift  in  a mighty  volume, 
flooding  an  adjacent  lumber  yard  and 
doing  about  ?5,000  damage  to  both  the 
mine  and  the  lumber  yard. 

A second  fall  occurred,  as  a result 
of  the  failure  to  have  the  place  se- 
cured, and  a second  flood  was  threat- 
ened- National  Organizer  Collins  was 
appealed  to  by  Superintendent  Thomas 
to  give  permission  to  seven  or  eight 
men  to  assist  in  relieving  the  threatened 
flood.  Mr  Collins  very  pleasantly  said 
he  would  take  the  matter  up.  A day 
or  so  later  Mr.  Collins  reported  to  the 
superintendent,  that  the  district  board 
had  considered  the  matter  and  decided 
it  could  not  grant  the  request. 

By  strenuous  efforts,  the  company 
gathered  enough  men  to  relieve  the 
situation. 

On  cross  examination,  Mr.  Darrow 
tried  to  minimize  the  effect  of  Superin- 
tendent Thomas’  testimony  concerning 
the  contract  that  was  violated  in  three 
days  by  pointing  out  that  it  contained 
no  time  limit. 

The  witness  admitted  that  the  union 
had  never  approved  of  any  of  the 
petty  strikes  with  which  his  company 
had  been  inflicted.  Invariably  though 
the  union  officers  would  come  around, 
after  the  strike  was  on,  and  send  the 
men  back  to  work.  The  witness  ad- 
mitted that  what  dealings  he  had  -with 
National  Organizer  Collins  were  al- 
was  pleasant. 

Superintendent  Thomas  does  not  ap- 
prove of  the  weight  system  of  payment. 
His  experience  has  taught  him  that  the 
per-car  system  is  the  best  and  most 
satisfactory,  all  around.  His  men,  he 
said,  are  now  of  the  same  opinion. 

Weighing'  Coal. 

Regarding  the  plan  of  weighing  the 
coal  in  the  railroad  cars  and  pro-rating 
back  to  the  miners  the  excess  or  lack, 
as  the  case  might  be,  Superintendent 
Thomas  said,  that  the  scheme  had  been 
tried  by  Jones,  Simpson  & Co.,  at 
Archbald,  and  had  to  be  abandoned  be- 
cause there  was  never  any  excess,  and 
the  men  always  grumbled  when  they 
received  due  bills  with  subtractions, 
resultant  from  their  not  having  sent 
out  as  much  marketable  coal  as  was 
presumably  contained  in  their  cars. 

There  was  more  than  the  usual  at- 
tention from  commissioners  and  others 
during  the  hearing  of  the  case  of  the 
People’s  Coal  company,  which  Mr. 
Reynolds  next  presented.  The  fact 
that  this  company  succeeded  in  oper- 
ating its  colliery — the  Oxford — on  a 

larger  scale  than  any  other  company  in 
the  whole  region  during  the  strike 
period,  was  generally  known,  and  com- 
manded attention. 

The  only  witness  the  company  put 
forward  was  John  B.  Hayes,  the  gen- 
eral superintendent. 

He  first  told  of  the  expense  the 
company  was  subjected  to  in  operat- 
ing its  colliery  during  the  strike.  A 
ten-foot  high  barricade  was  erected  all 
around  the  property.  Ape  lights  in  pro- 
fusion were  Installed  to  Illuminate  the 


plant  at  night,  and  a search-  light  was 
placed  on  the  top  of  the  - breaker  to 
guard  the  approaches  to  the  colliery, 
and  prevent  the  possibility  of  surprise 
attack. 

Armed  guards  patrolled  the  property 
day  and  night,  and  eating  and  sleep- 
ing quarters  were  provided  within  the 
stockade  for  workmen  and  guards. 

.The  correspondence  between  Presi- 
dent J.  E.  Crawford  and  Theophilus 
Phillips,  president  of  the  Oxford  local 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  was  lis- 
tened to  attentively  as  it  was  read  by 
Attorney  Reynolds. 

President  CrawTord  wrote  President 
Phillips  that  if  he  would  withdraw  the 
pickets  who  were  attempting  to  pre- 
vent men  from  going  to  the  Oxford  to 
do  repair  work  on  the  engines  and  the 
like,  he.  President  Crawford,  would  not 
attempt  to  mine  coal  without  first 
notifying  the  union.  President  Phillips’ 
ostensibly  consented  to  this  arrange- 
ment but  it  was  found  the  pickets  were 
atill  doing  duty. 

Union  Men  Surprised. 

Nevertheless,  President  Crawford 
kept  his  word  and  July  25  served  notice 
on  President  Phillips  that  the  colliery 
would  be  operated  in  a few  days,  and 
that  any  former  employe  who  did  not 
report  for  work  would  be  considered  as 
having  resigned  from  the  company's 
service.  Three  days  later  the  colliery 
started  up,  much  to  the  surprise- of  the 
union  men.  It  continued  in  operation 
all  through  the  strike,  mining  as  high 
as  470  tons  of  coal  and  selling  it  for  as 
much  as  $20  a ton. 

When  the  1902  strike  was  impending. 
Superintendent  Hayes  went  to  the  men 
and  endeavored  to  have  them  sign  a 
contract  to  continue  at  work  ' if  a 
strike  was  ordered.  The  men,  as  a rule, 
said  they  had  no  grievance  and  were 
willing  to  continue  at  work,  but  we:  e 
fearful  that  at  the  end  of  the  strike, 
if  the  miners  won,  they  would  not  be 
able  to  work,  as  the  returning  strikers 
would  refuse  to  work  with  them.  The 
company,  to  remove  this  objection, 
agreed  that  any  employe  who  would 
continue  at  work  would  be  paid  regu- 
lar wages  for  a period  of  one  year  after 
the  strike  ceased,  whether  he  worked 
or  not.  Twelve  men,  most  of  them 
steam  men.  entered  into  this  contract. 

Mr.  Reynolds  explained  to  the  com- 
mission that  the  existence  of  these 
contracts  caused  the  company  to  hesi- 
tate to  become  a party  to  the  submis- 
sion agreement. 

Superintendent  Hayes  next  told,  in 
detail,  of  the  extra  allowances  for  minr 
ing,  the  loss  of  time  consequent  upon 
pay  days,  the  impairment  of  discipline, 
as  a result  of  the  coming  of  the  union, 
and  the  absence  of  any  discrimination 
against  union  men  on  the  part  cf  the 
company. 

A man  Is  employed,  the  witness  said, 
to  keep  tabs  on  the  time  the  contract 
miners  work.  His  reports  show  th^t 
the  average  Is  4 9-10  hours  a day.  The 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


177 


union  miners  will  not  load  more  than 
six  cars  a shift.  They  say,  “That’s 
enough  for  a day’s  work.”  The  non- 
union men  send  out  from  eight  to 
twelve  cars.  About  sixty  per  cent,  of 


the  company’s  present  employes  are 
non-union  men.  The  company,  in  one 
vein,  is  blowing  down  the  top  ledge  of 
a 16-foot  vein.  Sometimes  with  one 


blast  a miner  can  bring  down  forty 
cars  of  coal. 

Superintendent  Hayes  was  excused 
just  before  adjournment. 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Jan.  24. 

[ From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  2©.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  25. — A rather  dull 
session  of  the  mine  strike  commission 
was  brought  to  a close  at  noon  yester- 
day, with  a bit  of  excitement. 

Just  as  the  session  was  about  to  ad- 
journ, Samuel  Dickson,  of  counsel  for 
the  independent  operators  of  the  mid- 
dle district,  claimed  the  attention  of 
the  commission,  saying  he  had  a little 
matter  to  which  he  would  like  to  direct 
the  attention  of  the  commissioners 
and  Mr.  Darrow.  Then  he  read  a tele- 
gram which  had  been  received  that 
morning  by*  President  Baer,  of  the 
Philadelphia  and  Reading,  from  the 
general  superintendent  of  the  company, 

R.  C.  Luther.  The  telegram  was  as 
follows: 

“Thirty-one  collieries  working  today. 
The  men  at  the  Noijth  Mahanoy  colliery 
went  home,  refusing  to  wait  until  a 
frozen  waste  pipe  could  be  changed  to 
enable  the  breaker  to  start.  The 
breaker  was  ready  at  7.30  a.  m.” 

“I  also  have  a little  matter  which  I 
should  like  Mr.  Dickson  to  explain,” 
said  Mr.  Darrow.  “I  have  here  a 
clipping  from  a Scranton  paper  of  Jan- 
uary 17,  which  I will  read: 

“ ‘Today  nearly  all  the  collieries  cf 
the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company  in 
Pittston  and  vicinity  are  idle  because 
of  the  scarcity  of  cars,  and  yet  the 
company’s  representatives  are  in  Phila- 
delphia telling  the  Anthracite  commis- 
sion that  the  output  has  been  restricted 
by  the  union. 

“ ‘At  several  collieries  in  this  city  the 
miners  have  not  been  able  to  make  a 
full  shifl  in  three  weeks  because  of  the 
lack  of  cars.  The  local  unions  should 
pass  resolutions  denouncing  the  stories 
of  the  corporations.’  ” 

Hostilities  End  Abruptly. 

Mr.  Dickson  was  about  to  reply,  but 
General  Wilson  cut  him  short  with  a 
whack  of  the  gavel  and  an  anhounce- 
ment  that  the  commission  would  ad- 
journ. 

The  case  of  the  independent  operators 
of  the  Lackawanna-Wyoming  region 
was  concluded  at  adjourning  time. 

Some  interesting  and  important  tes- 
timony was  given  by  John  J.  Gilligan, 
foreman  for  the  Wyoming  Land  and 
Coal  company. 


The  company  was  desirous  of  secur- 
ing men  to  shovel  culm  and  made  a 
proposition  to  the  local  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  that  if  the  union  would 
give  the  men  permission  to  work,  the 
company  would  pay  the  men  ten  hours’ 
wages  for  eight  hours  work.  The  local 
promptly  furnished  the  company  with 
the  following: 

West  Wyoming,  Oct.  21,  1902. 

This  is  to  certify  that  John  Gilligan  and 

S.  B.  Williams  have  power  to  hire  any 
number  of  men  they  need  to  work  from 
this  date,  by  permission  of  Local  Union 
1389.  George  Bertram,  President. 

S.  M.  Saunders,  Secretary. 

The  union,  at  another  time,  gave  the 
company  “permission”  to  discharge 
men  who  failed  to  report  for  duty  with- 
in two  days  following  a pay  day. 

“Does  the  union  rule  your  work?” 
asked  Judge  Gray. 

“Yes,”  said  Gilligan. 

In  the  cross-examination  the  witness 
was  asked  if  the  company  had  ever 
stopped  work  of  its  own  accord. 

“Not  since  the  flood,”  replied  the  wit- 
ness. Judge  Gray  exclaimed:  “Gentle- 

men, you  must  understand  that  there 
are  limits  to  this  investigation,  and  I 
must  forbid  any  evidence  that  ante- 
dates Noah  or  the  flood.” 

“Oh,  I didn’t  mean  the  deluge,”  said 
the  witness.  “I  meant  an  inundation 
of  the  mine.” 

Gilligan  also  testified  that  the  breaker 
boys  in  his  colliery  had  struck,  delaying 
the  work  for  days,  because  the  com- 
pany had  neglected  to  give  them  their 
annual  sleighride. 

Attorney  Reynolds’  next  witness  was 
J.  P.  Wickeizer,  a miner  in  the  People’s 
Coal  company’s  employ. 

He  earned  from  $5  to  $10  a day  and 
worked  from  eight  to  nine  hours. 

“What  do  the  miners  do  when  they 
go  into  the  mines?” 

"Well,”  said  the  witness,  reflectively, 
“the  first  thing  they  do  when  they  get 
in  is  to  examine  their  dinner  pails: 
then  they  take  a smoke,  maybe  blow  a 
couple  of  holes,  and  then  sit  around  and 
talk  politics.” 

He  said  he  was  a union  man,  but  not 
a member  of  the  United  Mine  Workers. 

T.  P.  McFarland,  of  Pittston.  who 
said  he  had  commenced  his  career  as  a 
miner  in  1848,  was  called  to  testify  to 


conditions  in  the  early  days  of  coal 
mining  in  this  state.  He  is  at  present 
postmaster  of  Kingston,  but  said  until 
three  years  ago  he  was  connected  with 
various  mines.  He  declared  that  the 
general  condition  of  the  miners  today 
is  prosperous,  far  better,  in  fact,  than 
it  was  years  ago. 

Because  he  worked  during  the  strike 
C.  W.  Page,  an  outside  foreman  for  the 
Dolph  Coal  company,  was  boycotted  by 
his  milkman.  “He  came  to  me  a few 
days  ago  and  wanted  me  to  trade  with 
him  again,  but  I refused,”  continued 
the  witness. 

“One  boycott  deserves  another,”  com- 
mented Judge  Gray. 

General  Wilson  questioned  Thomas 
Richards,  the  next  witness,  a clerk  for 
the  Enterprise  Coal  company.  H.  C. 
Reynolds,  counsel  for  the  independent 
operators,  sought  to  prompt  the 
witness. 

“Let  him  answer  the  questions  him- 
self, Mr.  Reynolds,”  exclaimed  the  gen- 
eral. 

Mr.  Darrow  raised  a laugh  a few 
minutes  later  by  saying  to  the  witness: 

“Let  me  ask  you  a question  suggested 
by  General  Wilson.  You  were  in  the 
lower  region — I mean  the  lower  coal 
fields?  I am  quoting  Mr.  Baer  when  I 
use  the  term  ‘Lower  region.’  ” 

Social  Conditions. 

Statistics  showing  social  conditions  in 
Lackawanna  country  drew  a rebuke 
from  Judge  Gray.  Charles  E.  Bradbury 
presented  figures  showing  the  county 
had  issued  612  liquor  licenses  and  the 
government  943  internal  revenue  li- 
censes. In  the  mining  districts  there  is 
one  saloon  to  every  196  inhabitants,  he 
said,  and  in  rural  districts  one  saloon  to 
every  558  inhabitants.  This  led  Judge 
Gray  to  exclaim: 

“It  looks  as  though  there  were  a 
large  number  of  the  illicit  places  in 
that  county.  I hope  the  district  attor- 
ney will  take  notice  of  this.” 

A little  later  it  was  brought  out  that 
many  of  these  saloons  were  run  by 
widows  of  men  killed  in  the  mines  and 
that  miners  patronized  these  places  lib- 
erally. 

“They  drink  for  sweet  charity’s  sake,” 
remarked  Judge  Gray. 


178 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Jan.  2, 6. 

[ Hrom  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan  27.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  26. — In  opening  the 
case  of  G.  B.  Markle  & Co.,  of  Jeddo, 
before  the  mine  strike  commission,  this 
morning,  Attorney  Samuel  Dickson  and 
George  R.  Bedford  created  a bit  of  a 
stir  by  calling  as  their  first  witness 
D.  J.  McCarthy,  of  Hazleton,  one  of  the 
lawyers  for  the  miners,  who  was  also 
one  of  their  witnesses  at  the  Scranton 
session.  Mr.  McCarthy  demurred  at 
being  called  to  the  stand,  but  finally 
waived  his  right  to  refuse  and  submit- 
ted himself  to  be  auestioned. 

When  a witness  in  Scranton,  Mr. 
McCarthy  broadly  intimated,  rather 
than  stated,  that  Markle  & Co.  make  a 
profit  out  of  the  company  doctors,  by 
paying  the  doctors  a meagre  salary 
and  pocketing  the  75  cents  or  50  cents 
a month  collected  from  the  employes. 
The  fact  of  the  matter  being  that  the 
company  simply  collects  the  assess- 
ments free  of  charge,  and  out  of  its 
own  pocket  maintains  a staff  of  trained 
nurses  for  sick  or  injured  employes  or 
their  dependents,  it  was,  as  might  be 
expected,  not  at  all  pleased  with  Mr. 
McCarthy’s  allegations,  and  determined 
before  doing  anything  else  in  the  way 
of  defending  against  the  miners’  at- 
tacks, to  find  out  just  what  grounds 
Mr.  McCarthy  thought  he  had  for 
making  these  insinuations. 

Mr.  McCarthy  Retracts. 

As  was  expected  by  the  company’s 
attorneys,  Mr.  McCarthy  retracted  his 
charge,  and  in  the  face  of  his  Scranton 
statement  that  the  comoany  doctor 
was  an  evil  he  freely  confessed  this 
morning  that  it  was  a good  sort  of  an 
institution,  and  that  he  had  nothing 
whatever  against  it. 

His  examination  in  part  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

By  Mr.  Dickson: 

Q.  When  you  were  at  Scranton  you  tes- 
itfied?  A.  I did  not. 

Q.  We  will  see  if  you  did  not.  Testified 
quite  freely.  I think  you  were  not  called 
as  a witness,  but  I think  you  testified, 
referring  to  page  1758  of  the  testimony 
(reading) : 

"Q.  Now,  state  whether  or  not  these 
doctors  are  young  fellows  who  have  just 
come  from  college.  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  The  assistants  and  doctors  there? 
A.  During  my  experience  in  Jeddo,  we  had 
a change  of  a doctor  from  every  six 
months  to  twelve  months. 

“Q.  Yes.  These  young  doctors  would 
corne  out  from  college  and  come  to  work 
among  the  miners,  and  then  go  off  and 
practice  for  themselves? 

"Mr.  Torrey:  I think  that  is  going  a 
little  far. 

"Mr.  McCarthy:  That  is  the  inference. 

"Mr.  Torrey:  I,et  the  commission  draw 
the  inference. 

"Mr.  McCarthy:  Are  there  any  extra 

charges  made  by  the  doctors? 

"The  Chairman:  You  say  these  doctors 

were  all  young  men? 

"Mr.  McCarthy:  Yes.  sir,  who  stay  six 

months  or 

"The  Chairman:  Fiat  experimentum  in 


corpore  vili.  How  long  had  they  been  in 
practice? 

“Mr.  McCarthy:  They  had  just  come 
out  of  college.  The  witness  may  not 
make  the  statement,  but  I will  make  it,, 
that  these  young  men  are  assistants  who 
have  just  come  out  of  college. 

"The  Chairman:  You  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  they  are  paid  a thousand  dollars 
a month? 

“Mr.  McCarthy:  No,  they  are  paid  a 
salary  by  the  resident  physician. 

“The  Chairman:  But  they  must  collect 
their  seventy-five  or  fifty  cents  a month, 
at  least  a thousand  dollars  a month,  if 
they  collect  from  every  miner. 

“Mr.  McCarthy:  We  want  to  be  fair 

about  this  and  not  mislead  the  commis- 
sion. I will  make  a little  statement.  At 
Upper  behigh  there  is  a doctor  who  has 
been  there  now  for  fifteen  or  sixteen 
years — Doctor  Neill — and  he  does  the  col- 
lecting and  pays  his  assistants  whatever 
he  sees  fit  to  agree  with  them.  He  sends 
to  Jefferson  college;  he  is  of  the  Jeffer- 
son school,  and  he  has  Jefferson  assist- 
ants. They  come  out  of  college,  men  who 
are  not  lucky  enough  to  go  to  Blockley, 
or  the  other  hospitals;  they  come  here  to 
the  mines  for  experience,  you  see.  Then 
Doctor  Wentz  has  been  there  for  over 
forty  years,  Buck  Mountain,  Eckley  and 
with  the  Markles,  and  he  did  the  collect- 
ing and  had  three  or  four  assistants, 
young  men  of  the  same  kind.  About 
seven  or  eight  years  ago  he  quarreled 
with  the  Markles  and  he  was  then  forced 
to  leave.  He  was  on  a lease  like  the 
rest  of  them,  and  had  to  get  out,  too. 
And  they  built  a house  for  him  at  Drif- 
ton,  and  he  moved  to  Drifton,  and  Doc- 
tor Kalb  came  there  and  employed  as- 
sistants. There  was  some  misunderstand- 
ing between  Kalb  and  the  Markles.  and 
he  left.  The  arrangement  between  Deer- 
dorf,  Phome  and  Markle  is  not  known  to 
the  people.  It  is  intimated  that  Markle 
pays  them  a salary  and  makes  the  col- 
lections from  the  miners.  I do  not  know 
that  that  is  true.” 

Q.  How  much  of  that  did  you  know? 

Knew  About  What  He  Said. 

A.  Well,  I know  just  about  what  I 
said,  with  the  exception  that  all  of  the 
young  doctors  did  not  come  direct  from 
college.  The  larger  percentage  of  them 
have  a hospital  experience  of  a year.  I 
want  to  say,  further,  that  the  doctor  sys- 
tem is  the  greatest  blessing  that  ever 
struck  the  behigh  region.  The  resident 
physicians  are  recognized  able  men  and 
they  give  valuable  service  for  the  money 
received.  There  are  some  of  the  young 
men  that  have  not  had  much  experience. 
I do  not.  know  that  the  miners  have  any 
objection  to  the  company  doctor  outside 
of  possibly  the  fact  that  they  are  not 
consulted  whatever  in  employing  him. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that?  A.  1 certainly 
do.  as  far  as  I knotv,  and  I have  been 
there  in  that  region  for  twenty-five  years. 

Q.  Is  it  anywhere  compulsory  up.  n 
them  to  employ  them;  are  they  not  at 
liberty  to  employ  them  or  not,  as  they  see 
fit?  A.  Well,  I wouldn't  like  to  say 
that,  for  this  reason:  It  is  frequently  in- 
timated you  are  not  compelled,  but  there 
is  kind  of  a under-duress  that  does  not 
appear  on  the  surface.  They  are  given 
to  understand  it  is  the  company  doctor, 
and  it  would  be  pleasing  to  them  If  they 


would  do  it.  The  Drifton  people  do  not 
make  any  collections  for  the  doctor  at 
all.  The  Upper  behigh,  J.  S.  Wentz  & 
Co.,  and  G.  B.  Markle  & Company  did  up 
until  quite  recently.  I understand  since 
Co.  and  G.  B.  Markle  & Company  have 
even  ceased  to  collect  for  the  doctor.  I 
do  not  know  whether  that  is  true  or  not. 

I think  Pardee  collects  for  a doctor,  and 
I think  the  behigh  Valley  does. 

Q WTe  are  getting  a little  from  the  tes- 
timony that  was  given  chiefly  by  your- 
self: "During  my  experience  in  Jeddo,  we 
had  a change  of  a doctor  from  every  six 
months  to  twelve  months."  You  an- 
swered, “yes,”  you  adopted  his  answer 
"These  young  doctors  would  come  out 
from  college  and  come  to  work  among 
the  miners,  and  then  go  off  and  practice 
for  themselves?”  That  is  to  say,  at  the 
end  of  six  months,  or  twelve  months?  A. 
I knew  a doctor  to  be  with  Doctor  Wentz, 
of  Jeddo,  for  seven  years.  - 

Were  you  testifying  in  regard  to  Dr. 
Wentz  at  that  time?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  are  testifying  in  regard  to  Mar- 
kle at  Jeddo.  I w^ant  to  know  what  you 
know  about  that  on  which  you  ventured 
to  give  information  pr  testimony  to  the 
commission?  A.  Dr.  Wentz  lived  at  Jeddo 
for  over  twenty  years.  Had  his  home 
there,  and  at  that  time  he  sent  his  as- 
sistants to  Eckley.  to  Highland,  to  Drif- 
ton, to  Freeland  and  all  around  that 
country.  Freeland  was  then  only  a very 
small  place.  In  fact,  he  was  in  Jeddo 
before  Freeland  was  dreamed  of,  and  he 
had  that  entire  field  to  himself,  outside 
of  one  doctor  at  the  Upper  behigh  and 
Dr.  Mays,  of  Upper  behigh  and  Dr. 
Wentz  were  the  only  physicians  north  of 
Hazleton  at  that  time,  and  Dr.  Dee  was 
there  for  many  years,  assistant  to  Dr. 
Wentz,  and  Dr.  Kaley,  now  a very  promi- 
nent physician  at  Hazleton,  is  now  with 
Dr.  Wentz.  Dr.  Keller,  superintendent  of 
the  miners'  hospital,  was  an  assistant  of 
Dr.  Wentz.  Very  able  men,  at  the  head 
of  their  profesison.  They  remained  after 
Dr.  Wentz  left,  and  these  other  doeto:s 
came  there,  then  the  system  of  changi:  g 
was  more  frequent. 

All  a Mistake. 

Q.  bet  us  recur  to  what  was  said.  Do 
you  repeat  the  assertion  that  they  had 
a change  of  doctors  from  six  months  to 
twelve  months?  A.  No.  I don't  know 
that  to  be  true.  Q.  When  you  said  that, 
that  was  a mistake.  A.  If  I did  say  it. 
I certainly  was  mistaken.  Q.  Do  you 
wrant  to  _ call  the  stenographer?  A.  Oh, 
no:  I don't  want  to  do  anything  like  that. 
Q.  We  may  assume  you  said  that?  A.  I 
may  have  said  that,  but  I did  not  mean 
it  in  that  sense.  I may  have  said  that 
generally. 

Q.  Then  at  the  end  of  your  statement, 
occupying  nearly  a page,  you  say.  "It 
is  intimated  that  Markle  pays  them  a 
salary  and  makes  the  collections  from 
the  miners?"  A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  please  tell  the  commission 
what  you  meant  by  that?  A.  I meant  it 
was  common  rumor  among  the  people  at 
Freeland  and  some  of  the  employes,  nu- 
merous employes  of  the  company,  that 
when  Dr.  Stoleman  and  Dr.  Deerdorf 
came  there  they  were  paid  a salary  by  G. 
B.  Markle  Company,  and  the  company 
made  the  collection  of  the  men  through 
the  office. 


Q.  Did  they  pay  over  all  they  received? 
Did  you  not  mean  to  imply  that  they 
made  the  collections  at  the  rate  of  fifty 
cents  and  seventy-five  cents  a month, 
and  then  employed  the  men  at  a salary 
and  pocketed  the  difference?  A.  The  ru- 
mors that  I heard  circulated  simply  were, 
they  charged  the  usual  charge  and  paid 
the  physicians  a salary. 

The  Chairman:  Without  reference  to 
the  amount  they  collected? 

The  Chairman:  Without  reference  to 
anything.  They  paid  these  physicians  a 
salary — that  was  the  rumor  common  in 
Freeland. 

By  Mi-.  Dickson: 

Q.  I am  not  asking  you  about  the  ru- 
mors; I am  asking  you  about  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  you  used  and  the  mean- 
ing which  you  intended  to  convey  to  the 
commission,  and  I will  repeat  what  you 
said.  A.  You  may  infer,  draw  deduc- 
tions as  you  see  fit  from  what  I said. 

The  Chairman:  Read  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Dickson  (Reading):  “It  is  inti- 
mated that  Markle  pays  them  a salary 
and  makes  the  collections  from  the 
miners.” 

By  Mr.  Dickson: 

Q.  Was  not  the  innuendo  you  intended 
to  convey  there,  that  they  pocketed  the 
difference  between  the  salary  and  the 
amount  collected?  A.  You  can  draw  such 
deductions  as  you  see  fit.  I had  no  in- 
nuendo. 

Q.  I propose  to,  but  I want  to  know 
what  you  intended  the  commission  to 
understand.  A.  It  is  very  plain  language 
and  they  are  capable  of  understanding 
and  interpreting  it. 

Q.  You  are  willing  to  stand  on  that?  A. 
I am  just  willing  to  tell  what  I can,  that 
this  was  gossip  of  Freeland. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  taken  the  slightest 
trouble  to  ascertain  whether  it  was  or 
not?  A.  I did  not,  it  was  not  any  of  my 
business. 

Q.  You  thought  proper,  having  begun 
with  a preface,  “We  want  to  be  fair  about 
this,  and  not  mislead  the  commission.” 
You  thought  proper  to  come  before  the 
commission  and  repeat  lying  gossip  of 
that  kind  without  knowing  whether  it 
was  true  or  false.  A.  I told  you  it  was  in- 
timated at  the  time,  I did  not  say  that  it 
was  true,  or  that  it  was  not,  but  that 
that  rumor  was  afloat  and  it  would  not 
down. 

Q.  You  know  it  had  been  contradicted? 
A.  I do  not  know,  sir. 

Q.  I thought  I had  the  pleasure  of 
handing  you  a copy  of  Mr.  Markle's  an- 
swer. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  does  not  contradict 
It,  does  it?  It  is  not  a chancery  case. 

The  Witness:  I do  not  remember  that 

•that  point  is  contradicted  in  Mr.  Markle's 
answer,  it  may  be. 

By  Mr.  Dickson: 

Q.  You  are  content  to  stand  on  that  an- 
swer without  any  further  explanation? 
A.  I have  just  given  you  this  explanation, 
these  rumors  were  in  circulation  and  that 
is  all  I know  about  it. 

Q.  You  thought  proper  to  repeat  them 
without  making  any  inquiry  whether  they 
were  true  or  false?  A.  The  question 
came  up  through  this  witness  and  I just 
made  that  explanation.  Q.  Oh,  no;  that 
statement  occurs,  you  will  see,  at  the  end 
of  a speech  that  occupies  a page.  A.  That 
was  not  a speech,  Mr.  Dickson. 

Mr.  Dickson:  That  is  all,  Mr.  Mc- 

Carthy, I may  want  to  cross-examine  you 
on  some  other  matters. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  McCarthy  has  al- 

ready said  that  the  general  system  prop- 
erly carried  out  was  a beneficent  one. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

The  Witness:  There  is  no  question 

about  that. 

Mr.  Brumm:  That  is  as  to  the  miners, 

hut  it  is  a system  of  preventing  others 
from  practicing  their  profession. 

The  Chairman:  We  are  not  concerned 

about  physicians. 

Mr.  Brumm:  You  have  gone  into  the 

sociological  question  all  around. 

The  Chairman:  You  must  not  branch 

out  too  far  in  this  investigation.  Pre- 
venting other  physicians  coming  in  does 
not  concern  us  at  present. 

The  Witness:  The  resident  physician 

always  names  the  very  best  men  possi- 
ble and  in  my  twenty-five  years’  experi- 
ence there  was  no  complaint  with  the 
company  doctor. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  McCarthy  has  been 
very  frank. 

Mr.  Dickson:  I wish  you  had  given  that 
at  Scranton. 

The  Witness:  I did,  I said  the  doctors 

were  very  eminent  men. 

Mr.  Dickson:  If  you  think  your  testi- 

mony coincides  with  that  which  I have 
read,  why,  of  course,  let  it  go  at  that. 

The  Markle  Leases. 

Mr.  McCarthy  was  also  examined  at 
length  on  the  character  of  the  leases 
for  the  Markle  & Co.  company  houses. 
It  was  shown  by  him  that  the  leases 
contain  a clause  to  the  effect  that  the 
tenant  can  be  ejected  at  will  by  the 
landlord  on  six  day’s  notice. 

The  witness  averred  that  the  papers 
on  which  the  thirteen  tenants  were 
evicted  at  the  close  of  the  strike  were 
gotten  together  at  midnight  in  Wilkes- 
Barre  and  served  the  next  morning, 
after  he  had  served  notice  on  the  sheriff 
that  he  was  about  to  move  for  an  arrest 
of  judgment.  Mr.  McCarthy  further 
stated  that  the  tenants  told  him  they 
did  not  sign  any  such  lease. 

Sworn  testimony  was  later  introduced 
to  prove  the  signatures  of  the  tenants 
on  the  leases. 

Miss  Gertrude  Martin,  head  nurse  of 
the  staff  employed  by  Markle  & Co. 
told  that  the  physicians  employed  for 
the  company’s  employes  are  thorough, 
and  stand  high  in  their  profession,  and 
none  but  the  competent  trained  nurses 
are  engaged.  The  witness  and  her  two 
assistants  made  5,500  calls  in  1900.  Medi- 
cines, broth,  milk  and  the  like  which 
the  nurses  needed  for  their  patients 
were  furnished  free  from  the  company 
store. 

She  found  very  little  pulmonary 
trouble  among  the  miners  and  only  a 
few  cases  of  asthma. 

Mr.  Darrow,  on  cross-examination 
questioned  the  witness  in  rather  offen- 
sive tones  as  to  whether  or  not  she 
had  had  any  talk  with  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Markle  or  any  official  of  the  company 
about  what  she  was  to  testify  to. 

Judge  Gray’s  Hint. 

Judge  Gray  rebuked  Mr.  Darrow  for 
this  saying,  quite  indignantly:  "Mr. 

Darrow,  if  you  think  this  is  manufac- 
tured testimony  say  so.  It  seems  to 
me  this  lady’s  testimony  is  quite  clear 
and  free  from  any  such  suspicion.” 

William  P.  Meigs,  superintendent  of 
the  company  which  built  cars  for 
Markle  & Co.  prior  to  1896,  testified  that 


179 

In  twelve  years  their  size  had  not 
varied.  The  miners  at  the  Scranton 
session  put  in  testimony  that  would 
tend  to  indicate  that  the  size  of  the 
Markle  car  grew  constantly.  Aged 
“Jimmie”  Gallagher  said  they  were 
built  of  live  oak  and  never  stopped 
growing. 

Wililam  S.  Johnson,  of  Berwick,  gen- 
eral superintendent  of  the  American  Car 
and  Foundry  company,  formerly  the 
Jackson  & Woodin  company,  testified 
that  since  1896  his  company  has  built 
all  the  cars  for  Markle  & Co.,  and 
that  in  that  time  neither  the  size  nor 
style  of  the  cars  has  varied  in  any 
dimension  or  other  particular.  The 
cubical  contents,  of  the  car,  he  said, 
were  147  56-100  cubic  feet.  On  cross- 
examination  he  said  there  .were  both 
larger  and  smaller  cars  built  by  his 
company  for  different  operators. 

Louis  Ortner,  of  Jeddo,  mechanical 
engineer  in  the  employ  of  Markle  & 
Co.,  gave  measurements  of  the  cars 
used  by  the  company.  The  largest  car, 
according  to  his  measurements,  con- 
tains 148  6-100  cubic  feet.  He  measured 
two  cars  selected  at  random  at  Jeddo 
colliery.  The  difference  in  the  con- 
tents of  the  two  cars,  he  said,  was  less 
than  four  one-hundredths  of  a cubic 
foot.  There  is  another  car  used  by  the 
company  at  some  of  its  collieries,  he 
said,  which  contains  about  112  cubic 
feet.  The  old  plank  cars,  which  are  in 
the  minority  now,  differ  in  capacity 
only  a small  fraction  of  a cubic  foot 
from  the  steel  cars,  by  which  they  are 
being  supplanted. 

AFTERNOON  SESSIOR. 

Sidney  Williams,  who  for  three 
months  past  has  been  the  general  su- 
perintendent for  Markle  & Co.,  was  ex- 
amined by  Mr.  Dickson  in  the  after- 
noon. He  was  first  questioned  about 
the  alleged  discrimination  against  men 
who  were  prominent  in  the  union  during 
the  strike.  Mr.  Williams  emphatically 
denied  that  any  man  had  been  refused 
employment  because  of  his  connec- 
tion with  the  union.  In  every  case 
where  a man  has  not  been  re-employed 
the  company  had  a reason  therefor 
personal  to  the  man  himself. 

Mr.  Dickson  wanted  the  witness  to 
state  the  purport  of  these  reasons.  Mr. 
Darrow  objected  to  this,  claiming  that 
if  charges  were  to  be  made  against 
these  men  the  charges  should  be  stated 
particularly  and  the  sources  of  infor- 
mation given.  Mr.  Dickson  declined  to 
have  the  sources  of  information  made 
public.  The  men  who  gave  the  infor- 
mation would  have  to  be  protected, 
Mr.  Dickson  asserted.  Judge  Gray  de- 
cided that  the  "purport’  ’of  the  infor- 
mation against  the  men  could  not  be 
given,  and  Mr.  Dickson  allowed  the 
matter  to  be  dropped. 

In  the  answer  made  by  Markle  & Co. 
it  is  set  forth  that  the  men  in  question 
had  been  discharged  “not  simply  be- 
cause of  agitation,  but  because  of  per- 
sonal aggressive  acts.” 


180 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


When  the  strike  was  declared  off,  the 
company  sought  to  have  its  men  sign 
industrial  agreements  to  abide  by  the 
finding  of  the  commission.  The  men 
were  urged  to  refuse  to  do  this,  and  a 
delay  in  resuming  operations  was  the 
result. 

John  Markle  told  the  committee  he 
was  only  asking  them  to  agree  to  what 
they  had  already  agreed  to  abide  by 
at  their  convention  in  Wilkes-Barre. 
He  was  not  a party  to  the  convention, 
and  many  of  his  men  had  not  even 
participated  in  the  election  of  the  dele- 
gates to  the  convention.  For  this  rea- 
son he  wanted  the  convention  agree- 
ment individually  concurred  in. 

Mischief  Makers  Persistent. 

The  committee  left,  promising  to 
give  an  answer  the  next  day.  The  com- 
mittee failed  to  return  at  the  ap- 
pointed time. 

In  the  meanwhile,  Mr.  Markle  was 
informed  that  the  same  men  who  had 
been  making  trouble  during  the  strike 
were  leading  in  intimidating  and 
threatening  any  one  coming  to  the  of- 
fice to  agree  to  return  to  work  under 
the  conditions  specified,  and  in  circu- 
lating false  reports  regarding  the  na- 
ture of  the  conditions. 

After  waiting  for  the  committee  two 
days,  Mr.  Markle,  the  witness  went  on 
to  say,  ordered  notice  to  be  served  upon 
twelve  of  the  chief  offenders  to  qu  t 
the  company's  houses.  This  was  Oc- 
tober 27.  The  leases  required  a six 
days’  notice.  The  company  waited  ten 
foi  the  houses  to  be  vacated.  The 
tenants  bade  defiance  to  the  company, 
saying  their  lawyers  had  advised  them 
they  could  not  be  ejected. 

On  the  tenth  day  the  company  di- 
rected Superintendent  Williams  to  have 
the  tenants  ejected  and  accordingly  it 
was  done.  The  work  was  performed  by 
coal  and  iron  police,  under  Mr.  Wil- 
liams’ supervision.  The  goods  were 
taken  out  carefully  and  placed  in  the 
street.  The  tenants  were  ejected  be- 
cause the  company  wanted  the  use  of 
the  houses  for  employes.  They  were 
legally  ejected  because  of  the  fact  that 
they  violated  their  leases  by  failing  to 
pay  the  rent.  Every  one  of  them  was 
in  arrears  for  all  the  months  of  the 
strike. 

It  was  not  raining  the  morning  the 
evictions  took  place.  At  4 o’clock  in 
the  afternoon  there  was  a very  slight 
drizzle. 

The  only  request  for  an  extension  of 
time  came  from  the  sheriff.  Nothing 
was  said  about  an  extension  being 
wanted  on  account  of  sickness.  The 
company’s  local  attorney  advised  that 
no  extension  be  granted,  as  the  only 


purpose  of  it  could  be  to  get  out  an  in- 
junction to  stop  the  proceedings. 

Earnings  of  the  Evicted. 

The  names  of  the  twelve  men  evict- 
ed, together  with  their  earnings  for 


1901  were  given  as  follows: 

Joseph  Popcum  $1,026  76 

Charles  Keenan  688  59 

Charles  Jacquott  730  32 

Andrew  Kamjuck  714  77 

John  Dimshock  714  77 

James  Gallagher  779  07 

Henry  Coll  491  99 

Paul  Dunleavy  (eight  months) 510  29 

Charles  Helferty  494  07 

Henry  Shovelin  973  93 

George  Pollock  275  65 

John  Nohie  . 344  54 


One  of  the  evicted  families,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams said,  had  70  bushels  of  potatoes. 
From  another  house  the  officers  remov- 
ed six  barrels  of  sauer  kraut. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Darrow 
read  from  Markle  & Co’s  letter  to  Com- 
missioner of  Labor  Wright,  recorder  of 
the  strike  commission,  in  which  John 
Markle  told  of  the  difficulty  his  com- 
pany was  having  in  getting  the  men  to 
return  to  work,  and  further,  that  some 
of  the  men  would  not  be  taken  back 
because  they  had  been  guilty  of  crim- 
inal acts. 

Mr.  Darrow  tried  to  get  Superinten- 
dent Williams  to  say  that  he  heard 
John  Markle  allege  that  the  thirteen 
men  who  were  evicted  were  guilty  of 
criminal  acts.  The  witness  was  “not 
prepared  to  say.” 

"Why  were  these  men  evicted?” 
asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

"Because  they  committed  acts  which 
Mr.  Markle  thought  made  them  undesir- 
able as  employes,”  responded  Mr.  Wil- 
liams. 

“What  were  these  acts?”  asked  Mr. 
Darrow. 

“I  am  not  prepared  to  say,”  replied 
Mr.  Williams. 

Mrs.  Coil’s  Illness  Not  Referred  To 

The  witness  denied  that  the  sheriff 
asked  for  an  extension  for  the  the  Coll 
family  because  of  the  illness  of  Mrs. 
Coll  and  of  Mrs.  Coil's  100-year-old 
mother.  The  sheriff  gave  no  reason 
whatever  for  the  request  from  Coll. 
The  witness  never  heard  anything  of 
the  aged  Mrs.  Coll  until  some  time 
later.  What  he  heard  was  to  the  effect 
that  the  Colls  abused  the  old  woman, 
giving  her  no  care  and  frequently  al- 
lowing her  to  sit  on  the  ground  with- 
out anything  under  her. 

Coil's  wife,  it  will  be  recalled,  died  the 
month  after  the  eviction  and  it  was  al- 
leged by  the  miners’  side  that  her  death 
was  due  to  exposure  at  the  eviction. 

Frank  Walb,  storekeeper  for  Markle 
& Co.,  at  Jeddo,  testified  that  ninety 


per  cent  of  the  employes  dealt  with 
the  company  until  July,  1901,  when  the 
company  store  act,  forbidding  taking 
collections  from  wages,  went  into  effect 
and  forced  the  company  to  go  on  a 
cash  basis.  From  this  time  on  there 
was  a falling  off  in  patronage.  The 
men  were  not  required  to  deal  in  the 
store.  Many  from  Hazleton,  Ebervale 
and  Freeland  who  are  not  employes  of 
the  company  deal  in  the  store. 

The  witness  also  told  that  the  store 
makes  collections  for  the  doctor  and 
the  funeral  fund.  No  one  is  required 
to  contribute  to  the  pay  of  the  doctor. 
If  he  is  unable  to  pay  he  is  not  per- 
mitted to  contribute.  Adult  employes 
pay  seventy-five  cents  a month  and 
minor  employes,  fifty  cents  a month. 
A chief  physician  and  three  or  four 
assistants  are  employed.  Free  medi- 
cines are  also  furnished.  It  is  only 
such  very  expensive  medicines  as  anti- 
toxin that  extra  charges  are  made  for. 

The  Chippie  Case. 

The  mother  of  the  Chippie  boy,  about 
whose  case  the  miners’  made  such  an 
ado,  received  $300  from  the  funeral  fund 
to  which  the  company  contributed  $50. 
at  the  time  her  husband  was  killed. 
The  father’s  death,  it  was  shown  by 
the  mine  inspector’s  report,  was  due  to 
his  own  gross  carelessness. 

On  being  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Carthy. the  witness  denied  that  on 
“five  hundred  occasions  at  least”  he 
had  told  employes  of  the  company  it 
would  be  to  their  benefit  to  trade  in 
the  company’s  store.  He  specifically 
denied  all  recollection  of  having  told 
this  to  one  Patrick  O'Donnell,  or  that 
it  was  his  custom  to  tell  the  bosses  to 
intimate  to  the  men  that  they  would 
get  good  places  if  they  traded  in  the 
store. 

He  admitted  that  on  several  occasions 
he  used  his  influence  to  get  better 
places  for  store  customers,  but  he  de- 
nied he  was  prompted  to  do  this  by 
any  knowledge  he  might  have  had  that 
the  employe  was  heavily  in  debt  at  th« 
store. 

Dr.  William  H.  Deardorf.  one  of  the 
company  doctors,  gave  more  of  the  de- 
tails of  the  plan  under  which  the  doc- 
tors. nurses  and  drug  store  were  main- 
tained by  assessment  on  the  employes. 

John  Zetsleft,  breaker  boss  at  Jeddo. 
took  the  stand  as  the  last  witness  of 
the  day  to  deny  that  he  ever  struck 
a slate  picker,  named  Mike  Becker.  The 
latter  swore  that  the  breaker  boss  often 
cuffed  him  and  once  hit  him  with  a 
club.  Zeisleft  told  further  that  it  was 
against  the  rules  of  the  company  to  lay 
hands  on  the  boys. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


181 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Jan.  27. 

[From  Ttie  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  28.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  27. — At  today’s  ses- 
sion, the  commission  heard  more  evi- 
dence from  Markie  & Co.,  and  some 
brief  testimony  from  Pardee  & Co., 
the  Upper  Lehigh  Coal  company, 
Wentz  & Co.,  and  M.  S.  Kemmerer  & 
Co. 

Figures  presented  by  Auditor  P.  Ed- 
ward Ross,  as  the  first  proceeding  of 
the  morning  session,  would  indicate 
that  Markie  & Co.  pay  their  contract 
miners  wages  quite  as  fair  as  any  of 
the  other  operators,  to  say  the  least. 

Grouping  the  men  who  worked  over 
ten  months  of  the  year  it  was  shown 
that  twenty  earned  an  average  of 
$1,528.20,  and  three  hundred  an  average 
of  $654.21.  Of  this  last  group  7 earned 
between  $300  and  $400;  29  between  $400 
and  $500;  82  between  $500  and  $600;  84 
between  $600  and  $700;  50  between  $700 
and  $800;  29  between  $800  and  $900;  19 
between  $900  and  $1,000. 

Another  statement  was  as  follows: 

Statement  of  Earnings. 

Earnings  of  certain  contract  miners 
during  eleven  and  one-half  months  ended 
15th  December,  1901,  including  eleven  of 
the  highest  earners  and  five  of  the  lowest: 


Thomas  Elliott  $4,402  61 

Henry  Hoffick  2 532  67 

John  Tyson  1.889  77 

Frank  Ray  1,735  54 

Stanley  Rowland  1,793  (8 

Frank  Forasser  1,701  04 

P.  J.  O’Donnell  1.297  15 

William  Vescevick  1,225  44 

George  Anoskie  1.190  82 

Andrew  O'Donnell  1,153  11 

Mike  Banjo  1,113  ’,8 

Mike  Rushinskie  513  51 

George  Koteh  481  27 

Barney  Komikkey  456  97 

Adam  Glasbus  475  91 

James  McDermott  381  46 


The  men  earning  the  largest  wages, 
the  auditor  admitted,  to'  Judge  Gray's 
question,  were  heading  men  who  em- 
ployed as  high  as  nine  laborers. 

When  the  miners’  side  was  being 
heard  in  Scranton,  the  Markles  were 
subjected  to  no  end  of  adverse  criticism 
as  a result  of  stories  told  by  Andrew 
Chippie,  a small  breaker  boy  and  Mrs. 
Michael  Burns  a widow  of  a miner  who 
lost  his  life  in  the  Jeddo  mines. 

The  Chippie  boy  testified  that  he 
worked  for  years  for  .the  company  at 
four  cents  an  hour  without  getting  any 
money,  his  earnings  being  applied  to 
the  back  debts  of  his  father,  who  was 
killed  in  the  mine. 

To  rebut  this,  Andrew  Ross  gave 
testimony  from  the  company’s  books 
showing  that  the  boy’s  father  not  only 
did  not  owe  the  company  anything  at 
the  time  of  his  death  but  had  credit 
of  $9.01.  The  window  got  this  together 
with  $321.50  from  the  funeral  fund  and 
a contribution  from  the  company  of 
$50. 

The  Burns  Case. 

In  the  Burns’  case,  the  story  of  the 


miners’  side  wTas  that  Michael  Burns 
was  killed  in  the  mines  in  1888;  in 
1894  her  boy  began  work  for  the  com- 
pany and  in  1898  she  received  the  first 
payment  of  money.  The  impression 
given  or  sought  to  be  given  was  that 
Mrs.  Burns,  as  a charwoman  about 
the  company's  office,  and  her  boy  as  a 
slate  picker  in  the  colliery  worked  for 
years  and  years  paying  off  a debt  to 
the  company  left  by  her  husband. 

The  facts  of  the  case  as  claimed  by 
the  company  are  that  Burns  was  not 
in  debt  to  the  company  at  the  time  of 
his  death  in  1888;  that  the  debt  for 
rent  and  coal  which  accumulated  be- 
tween that  year  and  1894,  when  her  son 
began  to  work,  together  with  what 
Mrs.  Burns  owed  at  the  store  over 
and  above  her  earnings  as  charwoman, 
amounted  to  $377.58,  and  that  all  ex- 
cept $40.88,  the  store  debt  contracted 
by  Mrs.  Burns,  was  forgiven  her  in 
1898.  The  $366.70  which  was  charged 
off  to  profit  and  loss  meant  that  the 
company  gave  the  dead  miners’  widow 
free  rent  and  free  coal  from  the  time 
her  husband  died  until  her  son  was 
old  enough  to  give  her  assistance.  The 
boy,  it  was  admitted,  was  kept  at 
school  until  he  was  fourteen  years  of 
age 

Taxes  for  School  Purposes. 

Auditor  Ross  gave  figures  showing 
that  the  taxes  raised  for  school  pur- 
poses in  the  Markie  settlement  and  that 
the  company  made  up  the  deficits  each 
year  by  direct  contribution  In  1899,  the 
contribution  amounted  to  $516.86;  in 
1900,  $381.67;  in  1901,  $435.08;  in  1902, 
$412.22. 

The  company  also  maintains  four 
club  houses  for  the  use  of  its  employes, 
one  each  at  Oakdale,  Japan,  Ebervale 
and  Highland.  The  club  houses  are 
supplied  with  books,  amusements  and 
the  like,  nicely  furnished  and  thorough- 
ly heated.  The  rent  for  each  club  house 
is  one  cent  a day.  The  company 
charges  this  nominal  rental  to  the  real 
estate. 

The  witness  was  next  asked  by  Mr. 
Dickson  to  explain  how  the  ten  per 
cent,  advance  of  1900  had  been  applied. 
In  Scranton  it  was  claimed  by  the  min- 
ers that  the  full  ten  per  cent,  was 
not  secured  by  the  miners;  that  the  com- 
pany’s system  of  figuring  gave  the  men 
less  than  ten  per  cent,  in  some  in- 
stances 

Judge  Gray  interrupted  the  witness 
with  the  remark  that  the  commission 
had  figured  the  thing  out  to  its  own 
satisfaction.  The  fact  that  he  did  not 
care  to  have  the  Markie  side  of  the 
story  heard,  indicated  that  the  commis- 
sioner’s computations  satisfied  it  that 
the  ten  per  cent,  was  being  paid  in 
full. 

Regarding  High  Wages. 

In  cross-examining  Auditor  Ross  on 
the  wage  statistics,  Mr.  Darrow  brought 


out  the  admission  that  in  the  case  of 
the  men  earning  high  wages  it  was  pos- 
sible that  there  were  special  circum- 
stances not  applying  to  the  general  run 
of  contract  miners.  It  was  shown,  for 
instance,  in  the  case  of  Thomas  Elliott, 
who  earned  $4,402,61,  that  he  turned  in 
2,400  shifts  for  laborers,  which  would 
indicate  that  he  had  employed  eight  or 
nine  laborers.  The  laborers,  however, 
did  not  share  in  the  $4,402.61. 

In  the  case  of  James  Gallagher,  who 
is  alleged  in  the  Markie  & Co.  answer 
^to  have  earned  $779.07,  it  was  shown 
that  it  was  quite  possible  that  the  earn- 
ings of  one  of  his  sons,  who  helped  him 
occasionally,  without  being  recorded  a8 
an  employe,  was  included  in  the  father's 
•account.  The  miners  will  claim  this  is 
the  fact. 

Mr.  Darrow  indignantly  protested 
against  the  action  of  the  company  in 
sending  forth  to  the  public  in  the 
printed  answer  statements  that  men 
had  earned  such  big  wages,  without 
explaining  the  special  circumstances 
which  distinguished  their  cases  from 
those  of  the  ordinary  run  of  miners. 
Mr.  Darrow  made  the  claim  that  in 
every  case  where  the  wages  were  above 
$600  there  were  “special  circumstances,” 
such  as  obtained  in  the  Elliott  or  Gal- 
lagher cases. 

The  witness  concluded  by  saying  he 
had  been  asked  to  testify  to  what  the 
books  showed,  and  that  it  was  not  his 
purpose  to  do  anything  more  than  that. 

Judge  Gray  had  considerable  difficulty 
in  trying  to  get  from  Auditor  Ross  an 
understanding  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  books  proved  the  contentions  of  the 
company  in  the  Chippie  case.  In  des- 
peration the  judge,  finally,  declared: 
“Deliver  us  from  the  expert  account- 
ant. He  can  do  anything  with  figures." 

Could  Not  Get  “Permission.” 

Another  instance  of  a contractor  for 
breaker  construction  vainly  seeking 
“permission”  from  the  United  Mine 
Workers  to  fulfill  his  contract,  was 
given  by  Henry  K.  Christ,  of  Mahanoy 
City.  He  made  a contract  prior  to  the 
strike  to  build  a breaker  at  Keely  Run 
and  another  at  Crystal  Run,  in  the 
Shenandoah  region.  The  strike  came 
on  and  his  men  began  to  desert. 

The  witness  heard  from  some  that 
the  Hazleton  convention  included  his 
class  of  workmen  among  those  who 
were  to  obey  the  strike  order,  and 
others  told  him  they  were  not  included. 
He  wrote  to  President  Mitchell  to  find 
out  what  the  facts  of  the  matter  really 
were.  Mr.  Mitchell  replied  as  follows: 
Hotel  Hart.  Wilkes-Barre. 

June  6th,  1902. 

Mr.  H.  K.  Christ,  Mahanoy  City: 

Dear  Sir:  Your  favor,  dated  June  5,  re- 
ceived and  read  carefully.  Replying,  wi  1 
say  that  the  Hazleton  convention  did  not 
take  any  action  upon  the  employment  cf 
men  in  building  breakers,  but  the  execu- 


182 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


tive  committees  of  the  three  anthracite 
districts  requested  that  all  persons  em- 
ployed in  this  work  to  cease  until  the 
strike  shall  be  over,  and  I,  of  course, 
have  no  choice  but  to  carry  out,  as  far 
as  possible,  this  policy.  I am, 

Yours  truly, 

John  Mitchell, 

President  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 

America. 

The  witness  sought  to  get  the  local 
officials  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  to 
assist  him  in  securing  “permission”  to 
have  his  work  go  on  without  molesta- 
tion from  the  strikers.  Two  of  the  union 
men,  Messrs.  Banks  and  Gibson,  laid 
his  request  before  the  strikers’  sub-ad- 
visory board  at  Mahanoy  City.  This 
board  referred  it  to  the  general  advis- 
ory board  at  Shenandoah.  The  .lattes, 
refused  to  pass  upon  it,  and  it  was 
taken  ud  to  the  United  Mine  Workers’ 
executive  board  of  the  Ninth  district. 

Barred  Out  by  Excitement. 

About  this  time,  the  July  convention 
of  the  mine  workers  was  called  at  In- 
dianapolis. Board  Member  De  Silva 
promised  to  take  the  matter  up  with 
President  Mitchell  and  the  district 
presidents,  when  he  got  to  Indianapolis. 
He  failed  to  do  so,  giving  as  an  excuse 
that  there  was  so  much  excitement  he 
could  not  get  the  motion  before  the  offi- 
cers. 

When  the  convention  was  over  the 
witness  telephoned  to  President  Mitch- 
ell at  Wilkes-Barre,  and  failing  to  reach 
him  made  a trip  thither.  Mr.  Mitchell 
was  not  in  Wilkes-Barre,  so  the  witness 
left  for  his  consideration  a proposition 
in  effect,  substantially,  that  if  the 
union  would  let  him  go  ahead  with  his 
contract,  he  would  agree  to  hire  strik- 
ers to  do  the  laboring  work;  give  pref- 
erence to  mine  carpenters  who  were 
members  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
contribute  $10  a week  to  the  strike  fund; 
keep  possession  of  the  new  breakers 
until  the  close  of  the  strike,  so  that 
they  could  not  be  used  in  producing 
coal,  and  pay  the  laborers  ten  hours’ 
wages  for  eight  hours’  work,  providing 
they  would  work  ten  hours  a day. 

President  Mitchell  wrote  to  him,  say- 
ing he  had  referred  the  matter  to  Dis- 
trict President  Fahy,  and  advising  the 
witness  to  see  Mr.  Fahy. 

Mr.  Fahy  was  seen  and  made  ac- 
quainted with  the  proposition.  He  ob- 
jected specifically  to  the  provision  that 
the  men  should  work  ten  hours,  and 
generally  to  the  whole  proposition.  His 
answer,  substantially,  was  that  if  the 
union  gave  permission  to  men  to  build 
breakers,  it  would  likely  be  called  upon 
to  give  permission  to  pump  water  and 
eventually  to  mine  coal.  There  was  no 
telling  where  the  thing  would  stop,  and 
he  could  not  approve  of  it.  He  agreed 
that  it  might  be  an  injustice  to  the  wit- 
ness to  hold  up  his  work,  but  said  he: 
“Some  must  suffer  injustice  that  the 
majority  may  secure  justice.” 

Threatened  with  Dynamite. 

August  13,  the  few  men  who  were 
working  for  him  at  Shenandoah  waited 
on  the  foreman  in  a body  and  said  they 


would  have  to  quit,  as  they  had  been 
waited  upon  the  night  before  by  com- 
mittees of  strikers,  and  threatened  with 
death  and  dynamiting  if  they  did  not 
cease  working  ten  hours. 

Rather  than  have  the  work  entirely 
suspended,  he  agreed  to  establish  an 
eight-hour  day,  with  a minimum  wage 
for  laborers  of  sixteen  cents  an  hour. 
He  had  been  paying  fifteen  cents  an 
hour  for  ten  hours’  work.  The  district 
executive  committee  would  not  agree 
to  this  arrangement,  and,  in  disgust, 
the  witness  rescinded  his  agreement 
and  decided  to  go  ahead  as  best  he 
could,  without  “permission”  of  the 
union,  paying  fifteen  cents  an  hour  for 
a ten-hour  day. 

Strikers  Interrupt  Work. 

The  strikers  intercepted  and  intimi- 
dated his  men,  and  as  fast  as  he  got 
new  men  they  were  frightened  away. 
At  one  time  he  was  left  with  only  five 
men,  where  he  needed  eighty.  With  a 
varying  force,  averaging  about  thirty- 
five  men,  he  continued  operations  as 
best  he  could  until  the  end  of  the  strike. 
As  a result  of  the  interference  the  one 
breaker  was  not  finished  until  the  early 
part  of  this  month,  and  the  other  is  not 
yet  completed.  If  there  had  been  no 
interference  he  would  have  had  both 
breakers  completed  at  the  time  the 
strike  closed,  and  a thousand  men 
would  now  be  getting  out  1,200  to  1,500 
tons  of  coal  to  help  relieve  the  famine. 

“When  you  ask  permission  in  a case 
of  this  kind,”  queried  Judge  Gray, 
“does  it  imply  that  you  grant  that  the 
party  petitioned  has  the  right  to  forbid 
you  doing  that  which  you  ask  permis- 
sion to  do?” 

“No,  but  they  took  it  that  way,”  re- 
plied the  witness. 

“They  assumed  then  they  had  the 
right  to  grant  or  withold  the  permis- 
sion?” 

“That’s  just  it.” 

“Whew,”  was  Judge  Gray’s  conclud- 
ing comment. 

Mr.  Brumm  on  cross-examination 
asked  the  witness  why  he  had  not 
produced  the  second  letter  from  Presi- 
dent Mitchell  in  which  he  referred  the 
case  to  District  President  Fahy.  The 
witness  explained  that  he  had  not  been 
able  to  find  the  second  letter.  The  first 
was  found  in  a pigeonhole  of  his  desk. 

Mr.  Brumm  osked  if  it  was  not  true 
that  President  Mitchell,  in  the  second 
letter,  said  that  the  proposition  was  a 
fair  one  and  ought  to  be  amicably  ad- 
justed. The  witness  could  not  recall 
that  this  was  contained  in  the  letter. 
He  did  remember  though,  that  Presi- 
dent Mitchell  said  something  about  am- 
icable adjustment. 

Robert  C.  Thomas,  president  of  the 
Thomas  Coal  company,  controlling  the 
Keely  Run  colliery  testified  that  if  the 
breaker  was  completed  his  company 
would  now  be  employing  between  100 
and  150  contract  miners  and  turing  out 
between  600  and  700  tons  of  coal  daily. 

Pardee’s  Case  Taken  Up. 

The  case  of  A.  Pardee  & Co.,  was 
next  taken  up.  Mr.  Dickson  called  as 


the  first  witness,  Aris  Pardee  Platt, 
purchasing  agent  for  Pardee  & Co., 
and  the  estate  of  A.  S.  Van  Wickle, 
whose  collieries  the  Pardees  are  operat- 
ing. 

Mr.  Platt’s  testimony  dealt  in  the 
main  with  the  provisions  made  by  his 
company  to  protect  its  property  dur- 
ing the  strike. 

A week  before  the  general  strike,  the 
pumpmen  and  engineers  at  the  Cran- 
berry collieries  went  on  strike  in  a 
body  because  of  the  discharge  of  one 
of  their  number.  The  company  filled 
their  places  with  foremen.  When  the 
general  strike  order  was  isued  all  the 
men  except  the  provisional  pumpmen 
and  engineers  quit,  and  profiting  by 
experiences  in  previous  strikes,  the 
company  proceeded  to  establish  a com- 
plete system  of  protection. 

A “flying  squadron”  of  30  coal  and 
iron  police,  was  maintained  at  the 
Cranberry  colliery.  Two  engines,  con- 
stantly under  steam,  were  kept  in 
readiness  to  rush  assistance  to  any  of 
the  collieries.  Each  colliery  was  sur- 
rounded with  a five-strand  barbed  wire 
fence  and  a force  of  guards  kept  on 
duty  day  and  night. 

The  witness  was  one  of  the  coal  and 
iron  police.  Another  of  them  was  the 
color-sergeant  of  the  One  Hundred  and 
Forty-seventh  Regiment,  Pennsylvania 
volunteers.  Another  was  a soldier  just 
returned  from  China,  and  another  was 
an  ex-officer  of  the  Prussian  army. 
They  were  all  men  of  high  respectabil- 
ity, the  witness  averred. 

There  wTere  two  raids  planned  on  the 
company’s  collieries  but  in  both  in- 
stances, they  got  information  of  them 
in  advance,  and  had  its  “flying  squad- 
ron” at  the  place  appointed  as  the 
rendezvous  of  the  raiders,  and  the 
raids  were,  in  consequence  abandoned. 

An  Assault  on  Hahn. 

The  only  violence  that  took  place  on 
the  company’s  property,  he  said,  was 
an  assault  on  John  Hahn,  a 65-year-old 
German,  "a  rather  peculiar  old  fellow 
who  would  not  stay  in  the  stockade 
and  insisted  on  going  home  every  even- 
ing,” as  the  witness  put  it. 

“He  must  have  thought  he  had  a 
right  to  go  home,”  remarked  Judge 
Gray  with  only  slightly  "shielded 
satire.” 

The  witness  exasperated  Attorney 
McCarthy,  on  cross-examination  by 
making  occasional  allusions  to  incidents 
in  which  Mr.  McCarthy  figured  when 
an  agent  for  the  firm  of  Coxe  Bros.  & 
Co.  Mr.  McCarthy  was  particularly  ex- 
asperated when  the  witness  volunteered 
thot  he  (McCarthy)  was  also  a mem- 
ber of  Sheriff  Martin's  posse  commita- 
tus,  in  the  1900  strike.  Mr.  McCarthy 
took  great  pains  to  explain  the  dif- 
ference between  a member  of  a posse 
commitatus  and  a deputy. 

There  was  a general  laugh  at  Mr. 
McCartthy’s  expense  when  the  witness 
further  volunteered  information  that 
Mr.  McCarthy  traded  in  the  Pardee 
company  store. 


Mr.  McCarthy  was  piqued.,  to  the  ex- 
tent of  bringing-  out  the  fact  that  the 
witness  was  one  of  the  deputy  sheriffs 
in  the  posse  which  fired  oh  the  strikers 
at  Lattimer  in  1877,  killing  nineteen  and 
wounding  thirty-nine.  He  attempted 
to  justify  his  course  in  bringing  out 
this  fact  by  saying  that  the  witness 
had  been  held  up  as  a fair  type  of 
coal  and  iron  police.  Attorney  Dickson 
said,  and  the  witness  agreed  that  they 
were  willing  to  have  the1  Lattimer  case 
aired  before  the  commission  if  it  was 
aired  in  its  entirety.  If  the  commis- 
sioners wanted  to  hear  of  the  affair  it 
should  hear  the  whole  affair,  Mr.  Dick- 
son, argued,  and  not  such  fragments  as 
Mr.  McCarthy  would  want  to  parade 
for  his  particular  ends. 

No  Bearing  on  Evictions. 

Judge  Gray  said  it  had  no  bearing  on 
the  questions  before  the  commission. 
“The  state  courts  have  passed  upon  it 
and  „we  wont  disturb  their  finding,’’ 
the  judge  added. 

Further  in  cross-examination,  the 
witness  candidly  admitted  there  was 
not  what  he  would  call  “a  reign  of 
terror”  existing  in  Hazleton  during  the 
strike,  and  also,  that  the  coming  of 
the  military  failed  to  send  any  men 
back  to  work  as  far  as  he  knew. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 


Testimony  in  the  Interest  of  Pardee 
& Co.  and  Upper  Lehigh  Co. 

Willard  Young,  who  had  chairge  of 
the  Pardee  coal  and  iron  police  during 
the  strike,  related  in  detail  the  experi- 
ences they  encountered  during  the  five 
and  a half  months  of  the  strike.  It  was 
a resume  of  all  the  acts  of  violence  in 
and  about  that  region,  which  came 
under  his  personal  notice. 

Albert  Leisenring,  general  superin- 
tendent of  the  Upper  Lehigh  Coal  com- 
pany, at  Upper  Lehigh,  told  of  condi- 
tions at  his  company’s  one  colliery. 
There  are  five  schools  in  the  township. 
Those  in  the  farming  district  are  open 
six  months  in  the  year.  Those  in  th!e 
mining  district  are  kept  open  nine 
months  a year.  There  are  two  churches 
in  the  town,  and  several  denominations 
conduct  services  in  the  school  house. 

The  company  has  put  in  practice  a 
system  of  educating  its  miners  to  do 
work  effectively  and  with  the  least  pos- 
sible expense  to  themselves,  by  sending 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

a foreman  to  work  with  an  inexperi- 
enced miner  and  instruct  him  by  pre- 
cept and  example  in  the  best  and  cheap- 
est methods  of  driving  holes,  using 
powder,  timbering  and  the  like. 

At  Freeland,  the  witness  told,  inci- 
dentally, there  is  a free  school  of  min- 
ing and  engineering,  founded  by  the 
late  Eckley  B.  Coxe,  at  which  the 
miners  of  that  region  can  be  schooled  in 
the  technical  knowledge  of  mining  and 
thereby  fitted  for  positions  as  mine 
foremen. 

Mr.  Leisenring  said  the  relations  be- 
tween his  company  and  its  employes 
had  always  been  very  pleasant,  and 
even  yet  are  quite  cordial.  That  the 
growth  of  this  feeling  might  not  be 
hindered,  the  witness  declined  to  re- 
count any  stories  of  strike  violence. 
Judge  Gray,  with  a most  commenda- 
tory look,  remarked:  “That’s  right, 

Mr.  Leisenring.” 

Soft  Coal  Miners  Return. 

Some  of  his  employes  went  to  the  soft 
coal  fields,  some  to  the  farming  regions, 
some  to  the  mills  and  shops  of  Phila- 
delphia and  some  to  the  “old  country,” 
but  all  have  returned.  The  men  who 
have  returned  from  the  soft  coal 
regions  told  him  they  did  not  like  the 
work  there,  that  it  was  “too  hard.” 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Darrow 
assumed  to  marvel  that  a company, 
which — as  the  miners  admitted — had 
such  friendly  relations  with  its  men, 
would  deny  them  an  eight-hour  day  for 
the  steam  men,  when  the  denial  meant 
the  possible  destruction  of  the  prop- 
erty. Mr.  Darrow  tried  to  get  the  wit- 
ness to  admit  that  it  was  because  of 
opposition  by  the  other  companies  he 
had  refused  to  grant  the  eight-hour  day 
for  steam  men.  The  witness  said  the 
demand  was  refused  as  a matter  of 
principle  and  expediency,  and  denied 
there  was  any  coercion  by  other  com- 
panies to  restrain  him  from  granting 
the  demand. 

Superintendent  Krigler’s  Story. 

Superintendent  Fred  Krigler,  of  the 
Sandy  Run  colliery  of  M.  S.  Kemmerer 
& Co.,  told  the  story  of  his  granting 
and  withdrawal  of  the  eight-hour  day 
for  steam  men. 

The  mine  is  an  old  one,  nearly  worked 
out,  and  if  the  pumps  were  idle  for 
only  a few  days  the  mine  would  be 
flooded  to  such  an  extent  that  it  would 


18.3 

be  a question  as  to  advisibility  of  try- 
ing to  reclaim  it. 

“It  was  like  a case  of  a house  afire,” 
said  the  witness.  “I  granted  the  de- 
mand, on  condition  the  men  would 
say  nothing  about  it,  and  with  the  plain 
understanding  that  the  grant  might 
have  to  be  withdrawn,  as  he  had  made 
the  concession  without  authority.  The 
papers  were  told  about  the  concession, 
and  it  was  played  up  as  the  first  vic- 
tory for  the  miners,  and  the  like.  Then 
President  Kemmerer  published  a state- 
ment that  the  concession  had  been 
made  unauthoritatively,  and,  at  that, 
provisionally,  and  on  seeing  this  state- 
ment I immediately  withdrew  the  con- 
cession. We  arranged  to  keep  some  of 
the  pumps  going,  but  all  except  the 
top  vein  have  been  and  still  are 
flooded.” 

Vain  Petition  of  Miners. 

The  employes  of  the  company,  the  wit- 
ness said,  petitioned  President  Mitchell 
to  allow  the  pumps  to  be  worked,  but 
the  petition  was  not  granted.  Mr.  Mit- 
chell referred  the  matter  to  the  district 
board,  and  the  board  refused  the  re- 
quest. The  men  at  the  mine  were  told 
by  the  district  officers  that  if  the  mine 
was  permanently  destroyed  the  union 
would  take  care  of  them. 

The  last  witness  of  the  day,  Superin- 
tendent Weber,  of  J.  S.  Wentz  & Co.'s 
Hazlebrook  colliery,  created  some 
amusement  in  describing  how  President 
Duffy,  accompanied  by  a large  "recep- 
tion committee,”  headed  off  a crowd  of 
imports  who  were  brought  from  Phila- 
delphia to  take  the  places  of  the  steam 
men;  how  President  Duffy  callled  them 
some  names,  of  which  "scab”  was  the 
mildest,  when  they  refused  to  be 
bought  off,  and  finaliy,  how  he  referred 
to  them  as  “You  genelemen,”  and 
“These  gentlemen”  when  they  agreed 
to  take  free  transportation  back  to 
Philadelphia,  as  an  alternative  to  death, 
dynamite  and  a whole  lot  of  other 
unpleasant  consequences  threatened  by 
Mr.  Duffy,  and  his  "committee." 

The  witness  concluded  by  telling  how 
one  mule  boss  after  another  was  coaxed 
or  driven  away,  and,  finally,  when  it 
was  no  longer  possible  to  hire  a man  to 
feed  the  mules,  it  was  necessary  to  take 
off  their  shoes  and  send  them  out  to 
pasture. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Jan.  28. 

[From  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  Jan  20.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  28. — At  this  morn- 
ing’s session  of  the  strike  commission, 
two  important  questions  were  interest- 
ingly discussed  by  Chairman  Gray,  At- 
torney Darrow  and  Attorney  Dickson. 
One  was  the  oft-discussed  question  of 
whether  or  not  recognition  of  the  union 
is  at  issue  before  the  commission;  the 
other  was  the  extent  to  which  the  oper- 
ator and  the  miner  can  rightfully  go  In 
the  matter  af  restriction. 


Mr.  Darrow  precipitated  the  discus- 
sion by  asking  if  the  commission  in- 
tended to  summon  before  it  the  oper- 
ators of  the  soft  coal  region.  The  miners 
had  requested  that  this  be  done,  that 
it  might  be  shown  what  a desirable 
thing  for  all  parties  is  the  recognition 
of  the  union.  The  commission  has  not 
as  yet  invited  these  soft  coal  operators, 
and  as  Judge  Gray  announced  during 
the  discussion,  the  matter  of  Inviting 


them  has  not  been  decided  upon.  The 
fact  that  the  question  of  inviting  the 
soft  coal  operators  has  not  been  de- 
cided is,  of  course,  positive  indication 
that  the  commission  has  not  as  yet 
concluded  that  it  is  concerned  officially 
as  to  whether  or  not  recognition  of  the 
union  is  looked  upon  with  favor  by 
operators  in  territory  where  the  union 
is  recognized,  and  this  being  the  case, 
It  follows  the  commission,  thus  far  at 


184 


PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  ANTHRACITE 


least,  takes  the  stand  that  recognition 
of  the  union  is  not  at  issue. 

Mr.  Darrow  tried  to  force  the  com- 
mission’s hand,  but  once  again  the 
commission  refused  to  let  its  hand  be 
seen.  On  five  different  and  distinct  oc- 
casions, Judge  Gray,  with  rare  tact  and 
judgment,  has  done  this  very  same 
thing.  Today  he  went  a little  farther 
than  on  any  previous  like  occasion.  He 
permitted  it  to  be  adduced  that,  uo  to 
the  present,  the  commission  has  not  de- 
cided that  “recognition”  is  one  of  the 
matters  it  must  deal  with. 

Restriction  Question. 

The  restriction  Question  was  intro- 
duced by  way  of  a protest  from  Mr. 
Darrow  against  the  miners’  “laziness” 
being  made  responsible  for  limitation  of 
output.  He  argued  that  the  miner  has 
as  much  right  to  say  to  the  operator, 
“I  will  load  only  six  cars,”  as  the  oper- 
ator has  to  say  to  the  miner,  “You  will 
be  permitted  to  load  only  three  cars.” 
Judge  Gray  agreed  that  while  this 
might  all  be  true,  the  miner  surely  has 
no  right  to  say  to  another  miner,  “You 
shall  load  only  four  cars  because  I do 
not  want  to  load  more  than  four  cars.” 
Mr.  Darrow  contended  that  the  miner 
has  a right  to  fix  what  is  a reasonable 
day’s  work,  not  only  for  himself  but 
for  his  fellow-miner,  basing  it  on  what 
he  can  stand  himself,  and  on  the  con- 
ditions of  trade.  A reasonable  regula- 
tion by  the  miners  of  what  work  they 
individually  shall  do,  Mr.  Darrow 
argued,  is  reasonable  and  does  not  tend 
to  restrict  output,  but  simply  to  equal- 
ize opportunities. 

The  discussion  concluded  with  a de- 
mand on  the  part  of  the  miners  that 
the  coal  road  presidents  be  summoned 
for  examination  as  to  the  extent  for 
which  the  companies  are  responsible 
for  restriction.  Chairman  Gray  said  the 
matter  would  be  taken  into  consider- 
ation. It  was  a matter  of  doubt,  the 
chairman  said,  if  “restriction”  is  really 
before  the  commission  for  official  ac- 
tion. 

The  colloquy  had  some  significant  in- 
cidental features,  as  well  as  important 
generalities.  It  is  given,  in  part,  be- 
low: 

Darrow’s  Demands. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Early  in  this  hearing, 

there  was  a request  made  that  this  com- 
mission write  a letter  to  the  soft  coal 
people  of  Illinois  and  others  working  un- 
der a trade  agreement,  requesting  them 
to  come  here,  and  I understood  it  would 
be  done.  Some  how  it  seems  to  have  been 
lost  in  the  shuffle. 

The  Recorder:  It  has  not  been  lost. 

Mr.  Darrow— They  have  been  notified? 
Or  am  I not  to  know?  If  I am  not,  that 
is  all  right;  I do  not  want  to  find  out 
anything  that  is  not  my  business.  I 
would  say,  though,  to  explain  myself  a 
little  further,  that  we  have  collected  a 
large  number  of  letters  from  large  opera- 
tors and  from  governors  of  states  in 
these  regions,  all  prominent  men,  and 
men,  as  we  believe,  of  character,  directed 
especially  to  this  question,  and  unless  the 
commission  is  to  call  those  men  I would 
like  to  read  the  letters.  I supposed  at 


the  beginning  that  they  were  to  cal] 
them. 

The  Chairman:  I will  state  that  it  is 
in  abeyance  before  the  commission;  we 
have  been  considering  it  in  reference  to 
the  course  the  testimony  has  taken  and 
as  to  our  opinion  as  to  what  benefit  it 
would  have  upon  the  general  issues  be- 
fore us. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I am  entirely  willing  to 
leave  it  to  the  commission  to  decide, 
without  pressing  a decision  now;  except 
I,  perhaps,  ought  to  say  that  if  they 
should  decide  they  would  not  call  them 
I would  then  want  to  read  these  letters 
as  the  next  best  thing. 

The  Chairman:  We  have  had  a num- 
ber of  letters,  too;  and  we  do  not  ex- 
pect to  call  all  the  men  we  have  re- 
ceived letters  from. 

Mr.  Darrow:  No;  but  a fair  number; 
I understand  there  is  a committee  of  the 
operators  there. 

The  Chairman:  We  will  take  that 

question  up  at  once,  Mr.  Darrow. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Very  well.  There  is  just 
one  other  matter.  There  has  been  evi- 
dence offered  here  on  the  part  of  the 
operators  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  the  miners  have  limited  production 
in  the  past  year.  Now,  we  believe  the 
facts  to  be  that  the  coal  roads  have 
placed  a limit  on  production  for  years 
and  years.  I have  felt  that  each  side 
might  be  left  to  call  their  own  witnesses 
and  have  not  wanted  to  disturb  anybody 
in  reference  to  it;  but  so  long  as  they 
make  the  charge  to  this  commission,  for 
the  purpose  of  influencing  its  decision, 
whatever  it  may  be,  that  our  people  have 
been  engaged  in  the  business  of  limiting 
the  production  of  coal  for  a year,  I 
want  them  to  bring  into  court  for  our 
examination  the  presidents  of  the  roads, 
so  that  we  may  find  out  the  situation. 
These  charges  have  been  passed  on  by 
investigating  committees  throughout  the 
country  at  different  times;  they  have 
been  the  constant  talk  of  newspapers, 
and  we  have  had  at  least  one  witness — 
Mr.  Haddock— who  swore  the  production 
was  limited  by  the  roads,  and  that  he 
had  gone  to  the  Interstate  Commerce 
commission  about  it. 

The  Chairman:  Do  you  mean  to  charge 
or  express  the  belief  that  there  has  been 
a limitation  by  the  presidents  of  the  coal 
roads  other  than  the  limitation  that  the 
market  and  demand  of  the  market 
creates?  Of  course,  there  is  a natural 
limitation. 

The  Economic  Side. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Well,  now 

The  Chairman:  I mean,  apart  from  the 
Interest  of  the  operators,  apart  from  the 
interest  of  the  miners,  it  would  be  a 
most  lamentable  waste  to  the  country  to 
keep  on  mining  coal  for  which  there  was 
no  demand? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes. 

The  Chairman:  Throughout  this  inves- 
tigation, I have  been  looking  on  that 
question,  which  is  really  outside  of  any 
issues  here;  that  is,  the  economic  side 
of  this  question  as  to  this  deposit  of 
anthracite  coal,  which  is  limited,  of 
course,  and  which  ought  to  be  conserved. 
It  ought  to  be  conserved  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who  are  to  come  after  us,  as 
well  as  for  this  generation,  and  a waste- 
ful competitive  output,  everybody  for 
himself,  is  a pretty  serious  thing,  and  I 
do  not  know  but  what,  in  some  crude 
way,  the  consolidation  of  these  interests 
has  tended  to  a more  economic  manage- 
ment of  this  storehouse  that  Providence 
has  given  us  In  this  region. 


Mr.  Darrow:  Well,  now,  I have  tried 
to  look  at  this  question  reasonably 

The  Chairman:  That  is  an  aspect  of  it 
that  cannot  escape  us. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I believe  myself  that  the 
consolidation  is  best.  That  is  not  a mat- 
ter that  is  in  my  judgment  to  pass  on. 

The  Chairman:  I am  not  passing  on  it; 
I am  speaking  seriously  of  a problem 
that  confronts  us  for  the  future.  So 
much  depends  on  the  coal  supply  of  this 
country!  We  have  seen  here  what  a 
shortage  for  a few  months  will  do;  but 
the  exhaustion  of  the  coal  fields  is  a 
matter  within  calculable  limits— a genera- 
tion, perhaps;  fifty  or  sixty  years,  per- 
haps— and  when  we  consider  that  our 
whole  industrial  fabric  and  organization 
depends  on  the  coal  supply,  and,  in  a 
measure,  our  civilization  itself,  it  is  a 
very  serious  problem. 

Mr.  Darrw:  My  mind  seems  to  have 
been  running  along  the  same  line  as  that 
of  the  chairman. 

Dangers  of  Waste. 

The  Chairman:  And  any  wasteful  com- 
petitive destruction  of  that  supply  is  a 
serious  matter.  It  does  not  concern  the 
issues  we  have  to  decide,  but  it  has 
forced  itself  on  my  mind  as  we  have 
gone  along,  as  I have  been  sitting  here, 
thinking  about  this  whole  matter. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I do  not  see  that  any- 

body could  intelligently  consider  this 
case  without  considering  that  question, 
because  this  coal  will  be  gone  some  day. 
and  others  are  interested  in  it  besid  s 
the  mine  workers  and  operators.  But 
this  is  the  aspect,  if  your  honor  please. 
But  what  I do  say  is  that  it  is  unfair  to 
charge  up  to  the  miners,  who,  at  least, 
could  have  little  to  do  with  it,  that  they 
have  been  restricting  the  output,  when 
in  fact,  it  has  been  done  by  somebody 
else.  All  I do  claim  is  that  it  is  unfair  to 
charge  us  with  a limitation  of  produc- 
tion over  a series  of  years,  and  say  that 
miners  do  not  earn  more  money  because 
they  are  lazy  and  have  been  limiting  the 
supply,  when,  in  fact,  the  operators  have 
done  it. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  think  the  mat- 
ter is  of  sufficient  importance  for  us  to 
dwell  upon  it  any  longer.  I do  not  think 
we  have  given  it  any  thought.  I think 
that,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we 
might  eliminate  the  w'hole  question  of 
restriction. 

Mr.  Darrow:  If  the  commission  wi  1 
consider  that  amongst  themselves,  and 
give  an  indication  in  any  way,  I am  al- 
ways willing  to  acquiesce.  I do  not  want 
to  act  in  the  dark,  however,  and  I can 
not  afford  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman:  Of  course  not.  I can 
only  state  this  for  the  commission,  that 
up  to  this  time  we  do  not  find  that  it 
has  been  very  clearly  proved  that  there 
has  been  any  systematic  or  concerted  re- 
striction. There  have  been  intimations,  of 
course,  that  it  has  existed. 

A Dead  Issue. 

Mr.  Dickson:  It  is  a dead  issue  with 
us. 

Mr.  Darrow:  My  friend  Dickson  falls 
into  the  common  way  of  viewing  sociolo- 
gical questions  from  his  clients'  stand- 
point. When  his  client  fixes  a limitation, 
it  is  an  intelligent  discussion  amongst 
themselves;  and  when  we  fix  it,  it  is  a 
criminal  conspiracy. 

Mr.  Dickson:  In  the  past  we  had  to 
deal  with  the  question;  I say  now  that 
it  is  a dead  issue. 

Mr.  Darrow:  We  have  to  deal  with  it 
now. 


Mr.  Dickson:  Now  it  is  a dead  issue, 
so  far  as  the  operators  are  concerned. 
They  are  anxious  to  produce  every  ton 
of  coal  they  can  and  to  work  eveiy 
working  day. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I think  it  is  fair  for  ti  e 
commission  to  consider  this  question  a 
little  amongst  themselves,  and  rather  en- 
lighten us  about  it.  I do  not  want  to 
give  any  more  time  to  it  than  I have  to. 

The  Chairman:  I think  they  have  con- 
sidered it,  within  the  limitation  of  n y 
statement.  Unquestionably  it  is  the  right 
of  a miner  to  say  that  he  will  not  pro- 
duce more  than  six  cars,  or  five  cars, 
or  four  cars,  but  they  can  speak  fcr 
themselves  only.  I do  not  think  they 
have  a right  to  speak  for  others.  That 
is  all. 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  same  is  true  of  the 
companies. 

The  Chairman:  Certainly. 

Mr.  Darrow:  If  that  is  to  be  any  part 
of  the  findings,  I want  the  companies  to 
prove  that  they  have  done  it. 

The  Chairman:  Have  they  prevented 
any  other  operator  from  doing  the  same 
thing? 

Mr.  Darrow:  We  wish  the  commissi  n 
would  ask  Mr.  Baer,  and  Mr.  Harris  and 
Mr.  Thomas  to  give  us  testimony,  bear- 
ing on  this  particular  point.  I do  not 
propose  to  go  into  any  other  points  with 
them  at  this  time,  but  I want  that  in- 
formation—and  from  Mr.  Truesdale  also. 

Mr.  Dickson:  Who  is  Mr.  Harris? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Former  president  and 

now  vice  president  of  the  Reading  road. 
We  would  like  also  to  have  the  chief  of 
police  of  Pottsville  requested  to  come. 

The  Chairman:  What  is  his  name? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Hiram  Davis,  of  Potts- 
ville. 

The  Chairman:  He  can  be  called  upon. 
We  will  consider  the  matter  of  calling 
the  operators  for  the  stated  purpose.  If 
we  consider  the  issue  is  before  us,  we 
will  do  it,  and  if  not,  we  will  not  do  it. 

Mr.  Darrow,  That  is  entirely  satisfac- 
tory to  me. 

Mr.  Darrow  interrupted  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  morning  session  to  read  a 
published  statement  to  the  effect  that 
the  output  for  December  was  5,100,000 
tons,  and  that  this  was  the  largest 
output  for  December  ever  recorded. 

“That  is  a tribute  to  the  energy  and 
aggressiveness  of  the  operators,  for 
which  they  are  duly  grateful,”  re- 
marked Mr.  Torrey,  of  the  nimble  in- 
tellect. 

“It  means,”  added  Major  Warren, 
“that  the  mines  are  working  more  days 
and  more  hours.” 

“Ach!”  said  Bishop  Spalding,  “it's 
due  to  the  commission.” 

"I  guess  there’s  truth  in  that,”  re- 
marked E.  B.  Sturges,  one  of  the  indi- 
vidual operators. 

The  last  of  the  independent  opera- 
tors to  present  testimony,  the  Lehigh 
Coal  and  Navigation  company,  occu- 
pied the  greater  portion  of  the  day.  A 
few  witnesses  for  the  Upper  Lehigh 
company  gave  cumulative  testimony  at 
the  opening  of  the  morning  session, 
and  then  Thomas  Whildon,  inside  fore- 
man of  the  Lehigh  Coal  and  Navigation 
company,  was  put  on  the  stand. 

Mr.  Whildon’s  Testimony. 

Mr.  Whildon  was  asked  by  Judge 
Gray  what  a miner  for  his  company 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

could  make  in  a month.  The  witness 
said  they  had  different  classes  of  min- 
ers. One  man  could  make  $100  a month 
in  a place,  while  another  would  not 
make  more  than  $60  in  the  same  place. 
It  depends  in  a great  measure  on  the 
miner  himself.  It  was  possible  for  a 
good  miner  to  make  $100  a month,  the 
witness  averred. 

He  told  that  he  asked  a number  of 
miners  to  testify  before  the  Commission 
as  to  their  wages  and  the  relations  be- 
tween the  company  and  the  employes. 
Some  of  the  men  refused  outright,  say- 
ing, “We  could  not  live  here  if  we  did 
it.”  Others  said  they  would  testify  if 
the  company  insisted,  but  added  they 
hoped  that  the  company  would  not  in- 
sist. 

It  was  explained  to  the  men  that  the 
company  would  not  ask  * them  any 
questions  bearing  on  the  union,  but 
simply  as  to  what  they  earned  and 
how  they  were  treated.  The  men,  how- 
ever, would  not  agree  to  take  the  stand. 
The  witness  said  he  could  appreciate 
their  position,  and  did  not  insist  on 
them  coming. 

Mr.  Whildon  explained  in  detail  the 
manner  of  working  the  pitching  veins 
of  that  region,  and  the  system  of  pay- 
ment by  yardage.  On  account  of  the 
heavy  pitch  of  the  veins  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  the  miner  to  “gob”  his  refuse, 
and  it  must  be  sent  out  with  the  coal, 
to  be  separated  in  the  breaker.  Forty- 
six  to  forty-eight  percent,  of  the  ma- 
terial hoisted  is  marketable  coal,  that 
is,  chestnut  and  above. 

The  men  are  paid  by  the  lineal  yard. 
The  other  dimensions  are  practically 
constant,  as  the  width  of  the  chamber 
is  fixed  at  24  feet,  and  the  heigth  of 
the  seam  remains  about  the  same  for 
the  distance  a chamber  extends. 

The  price  per  yard  is  fixed  by  agree- 
ment between  the  foreman  and  the 
man  who  takes  the  contract  for  the 
chamber.  They  have  very  little  trouble 
in  arriving  at  an  agreement.  To  the 
best  of  the  witness’  opinion,  there  are 
fifty  different  prices  for  chambers  in 
his  company’s  mines  alone. 

About  one  hundred  men  were  re- 
fused re-employment  after  the  strike. 
It  was  not  because  of  any  connection 
they  might  have  with  the  union,  but 
for  reasons  personal  to  themselves. 
Their  chief  offense  was  abuse  of  men 
who  attempted  to  continue  at  work. 

Workmen  Annoyed. 

Since  the  strike  closed,  no  less  than 
a dozen  non-union  men  have  quit  work 
because,  as  they  said,  they  could  not 
stand  the  annoyances  they  were  sub- 
jected to  by  their  fellow-laborers  who 
are  members  of  the  union. 

At  one  of  the  collieries  a strike  was 
threatened  in  1901  because  three  car- 
penters refused  to  join  the  union.  The 
witness  reasoned  with  the  men  and 
persuaded  them  not  to  strike.  The 
three  men,  however,  were  boycotted  and 
no  end  of  trouble  ensued.  The  princi- 
pal difficulty  was  in  getting  them  up 


185 

and  down  on  the  carriage.  The  men 
are  hoisted  and  lowered  in  squads  of 
ten.  When  any  of  the  three  non- 
union men  got  aboard  the  carriage,  no 
others  would  get  on. 

One  morning,  when  the  men  were 
to  be  lowered,  Superintendent  Whil- 
don, having  heard  of  the  difficulty 
that  was  being  experienced,  appeared 
on  the  scene  to  personally  supervise 
the  loading  of  the  cages. 

Two  of  the  three  non-union  men  got 
aboard.  A motor  boss  got  on  with 
them.  At  this  the  loading  stopped.  The 
one  hundred  or  more  men  waiting  to  be 
lowered  gathered  about  the  opposite 
cage  and  ignored  the  waiting  cage  in 
the  opposite  shaft. 

Superintendent  Whildon  told  the 
men  that  some  seven  of  them  would 
have  to  get  on  the  carriage  or  it  would 
not  go  down.  There  was  no  response 
from  the  men. 

Gus  Gildea  Speaks. 

Again  the  superintendent  spoke  to 
them,  using  conciliatory  tones  such  as 
“give  over  the  nonsense”  and  the  like. 
Finally,  Gus  Gildea — who  was  pointed 
out  by  Mr.  Whildon  from  among  those 
seated  at  the  miners’  table — said  “I’ll 
not  go  down  on  that  carriage  as  long 
as  those  two  fellows  are  on  it.” 

Superintendent  Whildon  said:  “That 

carriage  won’t  go  down  until  there  are 
ten  men  aboard,  if  it  never  went  down.” 

There  was  another  silence  of  some 
minutes. 

“Well,  if  you  are  not  going  down,  you 
had  better  go  home,”  suggested  the 
superintendent.  The  men  shifted  about 
some,  but  did  not  move  away. 

“I  knew  then  I had  them,”  said  the 
witness,  at  which  there  was  a general 
laugh. 

Finally,  Gus  Gildea,  a prominent 
member  of  the  union,  got  aboard  the 
carriage  and  motioned  to  the  crowd  to 
follow.  The  ten  was  made  up,  and  the 
carriage  went  down. 

Gomer  James  and  Gomer  Jones. 

While  the  carriage  was  slowly  load- 
ing up,  Mr.  Gildea,  according  to  the 
witness,  said:  “You  are  arbitrary,  Mr. 

Whildon.  Do  you  remember  Gomer 
James  and  Gomer  Jones.” 

The  witness  explained  that  Gomer 
James  was  a mine  superintendent  who 
was  murdered  by  the  Molly  Maguires. 
Gomer  Jones  was  a superintendent  for 
the  Lehigh  Valley  company,  whose 
house  was  dynamited  the  night  after 
the  Lattimer  shooting.  Each  of  the 
Gomers  were  accused  by  the  miners  of 
being  tyrannical.  Gomer  Jones  was 
removed  by  the  Lehigh  Valley  com- 
pany because  of  the  objections  of  the 
employes  to  his  actions  as  superin- 
tendent. 

The  union  men  who  heard  Mr.  Gil- 
dea’s  ill-disguised  threat,  the  witness 
said,  were  very  angry  with  him,  and 
did  not  hesitate  to  rebuke  him.  Mr. 
Whildon  called  upon  them  to  re- 
member what  Mr.  Gildea  had  said. 

On  the  way  down  in  the  carriage,  Mr. 
Gildea  said  to  Superintenrent  Whildon: 


186 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


“I  suppose  I might  as  well  go  home. 
You’ll  send  me  home  soon  anyway." 
Superintendent  Whildon  told  him  to  go 
to  his  chamber  and  do  his  work,  and 
he  would  not  be  molested.  He  con- 
tinued to  work  for  the  company  until 
the  1902  strike.  He  was  not  re-em- 
ployed because  of  his  conduct  during 
the  strike. 

Did  Not  Employ  Gildea. 

"We  did  not  re-employ  Gildea,”  said 
Superintendent  Whildon,  showing  con- 
siderable feeling,”  and  I’ll  guarantee 
the  commission  would  not  hire  him  if 
they  knew  what  we  know.  Why,  he 
administered  an  oath  to  one  of  our 
men  who  was  caught  and  marched  two 
miles  by  the  strikers,  that  he  would 
not  return  to  work.  A man  who  could 
stand  up  to  me  and  remind  me  of  a 
superintendent  who  had  been  brutally 
murdered  ought  not  be  taken  back. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Gildea, 
through  Attorney  Brumm,  tried  unsuc- 
cessfully to  get  the  witness  to  admit 
that  Gildea  did  not  mention  Gomer 
James,  but  only  Gomer  Jones. 

"He  told  me  to  remember  both,  as 
sure  as  there  is  a God  above  me,”  de- 
clared the  witness. 

Mr.  Brumm  argued,  by  means  of 
questions  propounded  to  the  witness, 
that  the  miners  had  a right  to  refuse 
to  ride  on  a carriage  or  in  any  other 
way  associate  with  persons  against 
whom  they,  to  their  minds,  had  reason- 
able objections. 

An  effort  was  made  to  get  Superin- 
tendent Whildon  to  admit  that  he  re- 
stricted, or  rather  regulated,  the  out- 
put of  his  company’s  collieries  to  con- 
form to  the  alleged  allotment  of  pro- 
duct made  by  the  joint  companies.  The 
witness  knew  nothing  of  any  allotment 
except  what  he  read  in  the  newspapers. 

Mr.  Brumm  started  in  to  examine 
Superintendent  Whildon  as  to  alleged 
failure  of  the  company  to  give  a full 
ten  per  cent,  increase  in  1900.  The  wit- 
ness was  proceeding  to  tell  "how  it 
was,”  when  Judge  Gray  interrupted 
with: 

"Oh,  that’s  that  old  powder  question 
again.  Never  mind.  We  had  that  fig- 
ured out  for  us  by  Mr.  Gallagher.” 

The  examination  concluded  at  this. 

Anent  the  act  requiring  two  years' 
apprenticeship  and  a certificate  of  com- 
petency before  a man  can  work  as  a 
contract  miner,  the  witness  said: 

Case  of  Political  Pull. 

"The  law  is  pretty  much  of  a farce. 
The  applicant  is  asked  only  four  or  five 
simple  questions  by  the  board  of  ex- 
aminers. The  principal  question  is, 


'Have  you  got  a dollar  and  a quarter 
to  pay  for  the  certificate?’  Why,  I have 
heard  of  Hungarians  presenting  certifi- 
cates made  out  in  the  name  of  Thomas 
Kearney.  It’s  often  a case  of  political 
pull.” 

James  McCready,  chief  clerk  of  the 
Lehigh  Coal  and  Navigation  company, 
presented  the  following  statistics: 

Statement  of  earnings  of  contract 
miners,  classified  according  to  the  requi- 


sition  of 

the 

commission: 

No. 

Ten- hour 

Earnings. 

of  men. 

days. 

$1,000  or  over 

16 

Over  211 

900  to  $1,000 

16 

Over  211 

800  to 

900 

80 

Over  211 

700  to 

800 

140 

Over  211 

600  to 

700 

166 

Over  211 

500  to 

600 

114 

195 

400  to 

500 

105 

160 

300  to 

400 

49 

121 

200  to 

300 

32 

93 

100  to 

200 

18 

67 

Statement  of  earnings  of  inside  com- 
pany men,  exclusive  of  foreman  and  all 
boys  earning  less  than  $1  a day. 


No. 

Ten-hour 

Earnings. 

of  men. 

days. 

$900  to  $1,000  

13 

Over  257 

800  to 

900  



Over  257 

700  to 

800  

28 

Over  237 

600  to 

700  

200 

Over  257 

500  to 

600  

454 

Over  257 

400  to 

500  

663 

234 

300  to 

400  

289 

207 

200  to 

300  

51 

217 

Statement  of  earnings  of  outside 
company  men,  exclusive  of  foremen 
and  boys  earning  less  than  $1  a day: 


No. 

Ten-hour 

Earnings. 

of  men. 

days. 

$800  to  $900  

4 

Over  301 

700  to 

800  

18 

Over  301 

600  to 

700  

29 

Over  301 

550  to 

600  

115 

Over  301 

400  to 

500  

97 

Over  301 

300  to 

400  

302 

252 

200  to 

300  

301 

216 

On  cross-examination  Mr.  Darrow 
adduced  the  fact  that  the  most  of  the 
best-paid  contract  miners  are  those  en- 
gaged at  No.  9 shaft  robbing  pillars. 
He  also  emphasized  the  further  fact 
that  the  "Number  of  men”  were  com- 
posite men;  that  is,  a succession  of 
men  in  the  one  position  for  a year 
would  be  counted  as  one  man. 

Other  items  from  the  statistics  are  as 
follows: 


No.  of  employes  6.000 

Average  earnings  of  contract 

miners  per  each  ten-hour  day $3.14 

Inside  skilled  laborers  $2.31 

Inside  unskilled  uaborers  $1.83 

Inside  boys  $100 

Outside  skilled  laborers  $196 

Outside  unskilled  laborers $1.28 


Outside  boys  .77 

Average  annual  earnings  of  2,361 

adults  employed  inside  $534.20 

Average  annual  earnings  of  1.884 

adults  employed  outside  $379. 2S 

Average  annual  earnings  of  114 

boys  inside  $210.00 

Average  annual  earnings  of  761 

boys  outside  $160  73 

Outside  value  of  real  estate  of 

employes  $2,871,916 

Owing  to  heavy  rains  in  August  and 
December,  1901,  there  was  a resultant 
loss  of  working  time  amounting  to 
thirty  days  for  all  the  collieries.  This 
practically  means  the  tabulations  are 
for  eleven  months. 

In  the  banks  of  Mauch  Chunk,  Lans- 
ford  and  Tamaqua,  where  the  employes 
of  this  company  comprise  a goodly  part 
of  the  population,  the  total  deposits  are 
$2,530,000,  of  which,  it  is  estimated,  the 
company’s  employes  own 1 $1,000,000. 
Eight  hundred  and  seventy  of  the  em- 
ployes live  in  their  own  homes,  and  in 
483  of  these  homes  are  found  pianos  or 
organs. 

Beneficial  Fund. 

The  company  has  established,  in  co- 
operation with  its  employes,  a bene- 
ficial fund.  The  only  expense  of  ad- 
ministering the  fund  is  the  cost  of  sta- 
tionery. Between  1884  and  1902  the  com- 
pany contributed  to  this  fund  $192,616.- 
39,  and  the  employes  $150,681.  The  ex- 
penditures in  this  period  were  $30S,613.- 
70  in  sick  and  funeral  benefits,  and  $15,- 
310.40  for  doctors  and  like  expenses. 
The  association  now  has  a balance  of 
$39,884,  of  which  amount  $35,000  is  in- 
vested in  the  bonds  of  the  company. 

A number  of  the  company’s  mine 
superintendents  told  briefly  of  strike 
conditions  and  effects.  One  of  them. 
Archbald  Reeves,  stated  that  the  men 
from  his  colliery  who  went  to  the  soft 
coal  regions  during  the  strike  declared 
openly  when  they  returned  that  it  was 
in  the  bituminous,  and  not  the  anthra- 
cite, region  that  the  strike  should  have 
occurred. 

“Be  patient,”  remarked  Attorney 
Dickson.  “We  may  have  one  there  be^ 
fore  long.” 

“Let’s  hope  not,”  said  Judge  Gray. 
“We  will  take  that  strike  up  When 
we  get  through  with  this,”  jokingly  re- 
marked Mr.  Darrow. 

In  cross-examining  Assistant  Super- 
intendent Lauer,  Mr.  Darrow  showed 
that  the  187  pianos  owned  by  employes 
of  the  company  were  owned  for  the 
most  part  by  the  bosses.  He  also  sug- 
gested that  some  of  the  organs  which 
it  is  alleged  are  owned  by  employes 
are  harmonicas. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


187 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Jan.  29. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  30. J 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  29. — The  case  of 
the  Philadelphia  and  Reading-  coal  and 
iron  company  is  now  being  heard  by 
the  mine  strike  commission.  It  was 
opened  this  morning  and  occupied  all 
except  half  an  hour  of  the  morning 
session,  in  which  the  case  of  the  St. 
Clair  Coal  company,  the  last  of  the 
independents,  was  presented  by  Presi- 
dent W.  H.  Taylor. 

The  Reading  is  the  biggest  company 
in  the  anthracite  field  producing  twen- 
ty-one per  cent,  of  the  total  output  and 
employing  between  25,000  and  26,000  men 
at  twenty-five  collieries.  Its  case  was 
conducted  by  Hon.  Simon  P.  Wolverton, 
of  Sunbury. 

The  Reading  claims  to  pay  the  best 
wages  in  the  region  and  that  its  men 
enjoy  conditions  more  favorable  than 
those  of  any  other  company.  The  fact 
that  George  F.  Baer  is  president  of  the 
company  commands  for  its  case  atten- 
tion that  would  likely  be  wanting  to 
the  case  of  another  company  at  this 
late  stage  of  the  hearings. 

General  Superintendent  Veith  and 
three  of  the  division  superintendents 
were  on  the  stand.  They  told  generally 
of  the  conditions  obtaining  in  the  Read- 
ing collieries  and  specifically  of  a num- 
ber of  incidents  of  unreasonable  inter- 
ference by  the  union  officers,  two  of  the 
instances  resulting  in  the  total  destruc- 
tion of  valuable  mines  and  the  idleness 
of  hundreds  of  men. 

It  was  shown  by  General  Superin- 
tendent Veith  that  the  weighing  of 
coal  is  an  impossibility  in  the  Reading 
collieries  because  of  the  steep  pitch  of 
the  veins,  and  at  the  noon  recess,  at  a 
conference  between  Secretary  George 
Hartlein  of  the  Ninth  district,  United 
Mine  Workers,  and  General  Superin- 
tendent Veith  and  the  respective  attor- 
neys of  the  opposing  side,  it  was  agreed 
that  the  demands  for  weighing  of  coal 
should  be  withdrawn  as  far  as  the 
Ninth  district  was  concerned.  The 
agreement  was  reached  in  a fifteen  min- 
ute informal  talk.  Mr.  Wolverton  an- 
nounced it  to  the  commissioners  at  the 
opening  of  the  afternoon  session. 

The  commissioners  and  many  of  the 
parties  before  the  commission  wore  pink 
carnations  as  a mark  of  McKinley  day. 

The  Morning  Session. 

Attorney  Wolverton  opened  the  case 
of  the  Philadelphia  and  Reading  Coal 
and  Iron  company  without  any  formal 
address.  He  handed  up  copies  of  a 
large  pamphlet,  containing  in  chronolo- 
gical order  all  the  correspondence  be- 
tween the  union  and  the  companies,  be- 
tween both  these  and  the  president, 
minutes  of  mine  workers’  conventions, 
a resume  of  strike  violence,  and  pretty 
much  everything  else  of  interest  per- 
taining to  the  strike. 

Mr.  Wolverton  called  as  the  first  wit- 
ness John  Veith,  of  Pottsville,  the  com- 


pany’s general  superintendent.  Mr.Veith 
was  first  called  upon  to  explain  the  na- 
ture of  the  veins  and  character  of  min- 
ing in  the  Schuylkill  region. 

The  company,  he  said,  employes  25,000 
men  and  has  thirty-seven  collieries.  All 
the  collieries  are  in  operation,  except 
two,  which  had  to  be  abandoned  by 
reason  of  flooding  during  the  strike. 
The  veins  are  all  pitching,  some  of 
them  having  a slant  of  76  degrees.  Be- 
cause of  this  peculiarity  of  the  coal  de- 
posit, payment  must  be  made  by  the 
yardage  system  in  all  except  three  col- 
lieries and  an  occasional  stretch  be- 
tween slanting  pitches. 

It  is  impossible  to  take  out  all  the 
coal  as  fast  as  it  is  cut.  A certain  pro- 
portion must  be  left  in  a lower  level 
until  all  the  coal  is  taken  from  the 
levels  above  it,  as  a matter  of  protec- 
tion against  caving.  As  a usual  thing, 
there  is  a million  or  a million  and  a 
quarter  tons  of  cut  coal  remaining  in 
the  mines.  Some  of  it  has  been  cut  for 
more  than  twenty  years. 

It  was  admitted  at  the  Scranton  ses- 
sions by  the  miners  that  payment  by 
weight  was  impracticable  in  the  Schuyl- 
kill region.  Mr.  Wolverton  brought  out 
testimony  to  show  this  for  the  purpose 
of  having  it  on  the  record. 

Miners  work  two  in  a breast.  They 
employ  no  laborers.  The  cleaning  and 
loading  of  coal  is  done  by  company 
laborers.  The  contract  made  with  the 
miner  is  simply  for  cutting  coal.  The 
miner  is  paid  whether  or  not  the  coal 
is  ever  taken  out.  He  simply  goes 
ahead  driving  his  chamber  as  far  as  he 
can,  with  no  regard  for  what  becomes 
of  the  material. 

The  rate  per  yard  is  fixed  by  agree- 
ment between  the  mine  boss  and  the 
miner.  There  is  a minimum  price  and 
the  agreement  price  is  fixed  at  or  above 
this,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
vein. 

If  the  man  does  not  make  good  wages 
for  two  weeks,  the  company  allows  him 
$2.32  a day,-  the  wage  of  a company 
miner,  and  makes  a new  agreement 
with  him  for  the  driving  of  the  cham- 
ber, increasing  the  allowance  to  a sat- 
isfactory figure.  If  the  miner  makes 
unexpectedly  large  earnings  out  of  his 
contract,  the  company  does  not  reduce 
the  agreement  figure. 

Important  Declaration. 

The  witness  made  the  important  dec- 
laration that  the  miners  who  are  work- 
ing in  flat  veins,  and  who  are  paid  by 
the  car,  cannot  be  induced  to  let  the 
company  pay  them  by  the  yardage  sys- 
tem. The  witness  was  free  to  admit 
that  the  miners  were  wise  in  this. 
Sometimes,  he  said,  a flat  vein  will  run 
fifty  feet  high  in  places,  and,  of  course, 
the  miner  would  make  slow  progress 
forward.  Mining  by  the  car,  however, 
he  can,  in  a place  like  this,  blow  down 
tons  upon  tons  pf  coal  with  every  shot. 


In  some  places  it  is  necessary  to  pay 
by  the  “buggy.”  The  “buggy”  is  a 
small  wagon  used  for  carrying  coal  out 
of  the  breast  to  the  point  where  It  is 
dumped  into  the  “battery,”  which  slides 
it  down  to  the  road  where  it  is  loaded. 
In  the  collieries  of  this  company,  the 
witness  averred,  there  are  three  dif- 
ferent systems  of  payment  in  vogue  in 
the  same  vein.  It  is  an  impossibility, 
or  at  least  an  impracticability  to  suc- 
cessfully introduce  any  one  system  of 
payment  in  a mine. 

The  witness  then  went  into  further 
details  of  how  the  methods  of  mining 
in  the  Reading  collieries  differ  from 
those  of  the  upper  and  middle  districts. 
One  expensive  thing  his  company  has 
to  contend  with,  and  which  the  upper 
and  middle  district  collieries  do  not,  is 
the  “jigging”  of  coal;  that  is  all  the 
material  is  taken  out  and  sent  to  the 
breaker,  and  with  the  aid  of  “jigs,”  the 
slate  is  separated  from  the  coal,  which 
latter  has  only  one-half  the  specific 
gravity  of  the  other. 

In  describing  the  generally  favorable 
conditions  of  the  Reading  miners,  Mr. 
Veith  told  that  it  is  made  possible  for 
them  to  live  in  the  towns  and  avoid 
settling  in  “patches”  around  the  col- 
lieries, by  trains  run  for  their  conven- 
ience in  all  directions  morning  and 
evening.  Only  nominal  fares  are  charg- 
ed. 

The  witness  is  71  years  of  age  and 
has  spent  fifty-two  years  of  his  life  in 
and  about  the  mines.  Two  of  his  old 
“butties,”  one  seventy-three  and  the 
other  seventy-five  years  of  age,  are  still 
working  in  the  mines.  The  only  asthma 
he  knows  of  is  among  the  old  miners 
who  worked  in  the  days  prior  to  the 
installation  of  modern  systems  of  ven- 
tilation. 

Judge  Gray  asked:  “Does  your  com- 

pany own  the  houses  at  Hickory 
Ridge?” 

The  witness  was  not  sure  about  it 
and  Attorney  Wolverton,  who  evidently 
had  anticipated  the  question  said  that 
the  company  does  not  own  these  houses. 

“The  men,  themselves,  own  these 
houses,”  explained  Mr.  Wolverton.  They 
were  their  own  architects  and  builders 
and  found  their  own  timber.” 

“They  didn’t  find  much,’  remarked 
Judge  Gray  as  his  mind  went  back  to 
the  spectacle  presented  by  the  row  of 
shacks  at  Hickory  Ridge  which  the 
commission  encountered  on  its  tour  of 
investigation. 

Mr.  Veith  had  stories  to  tell  of  im- 
pairment of  discipline  following  the 
1900  strike,  similar  to  those  told  by  wit- 
nesses for  other  companies. 

Instance  of  Ingratitude. 

A rare  instance  of  ingratitude — as  the 
company  regarded  it — was  related  by 
Mr.  Veith.  Preston  No.  3 colliery  was 
flooded  almost  to  the  top  of  the  shaft 


188 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


by  an  accident.  This  was  prior  to  the 
strike  of  1902.  In  February  1902,  a min- 
er fell  down  the  shaft.  The  company 
put  on  a big  force  of  men  with  the  best 
adapted  apparatus  for  emptying  the 
mine  of  its  water  that  the  body  might 
be  recovered  in  the  least  possible  time. 
The  strike  came  but  the  pumpmen  kept 
at  work.  July  8,  the  body  was  recover- 
ed, and  the  next  day  the  president  of 
the  local  ordered  the  pumpmen  to  quit. 
They  quit  and  the  mine  filled  up  again. 
It  is  still  filled  and  likely  will  be  per- 
manently abandoned.  It  cost  the  com- 
pany $50,000  to  recover  the  body. 

The  witness  told  of  the  vigorous  ef- 
forts made  by  the  officers  of  the  union 
to  call  out  the  men  at  the  Gilbert  water 
shaft,  which  drains  two  collieries  at 
Gilberton,  and  which  collieries  would 
be  drowned  in  a short  time  if  the  oper- 
ations were  stopped.  Between  5,000,000 
and  6,000,000  gallons  of  water  are  hoist- 
ed at  this  shaft  every  twenty-four 
hours.  Two  immense  buckets,  each 
having  a capacity  of  2,400  gallons,  are 
used  to  lift  the  water.  They  can  be 
hoisted  and  emptied  at  the  rate  of  100 
an  hour. 

Denial  of  Blacklist. 

Mr.  Veith  concluded  his  direct  exam- 
ination by  making  specific  denial  of  the 
existence  of  a blacklist  in  his  company 
and  of  any  restriction  on  the  part  of 
the  company,  of  the  amount  of  work  a 
miner  shall  do. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Darrow 
had  the  witness  listen  to  the  reading 
of  some  testimony  he  gave  before  the 
industrial  commission,  in  which  he  de- 
clared that  the  foreigners  were  good 
fellows;  that  they  gave  little  trouble, 
and  while  it  was  true  they  had  quar- 
rels they  were  always  among  them- 
selves. 

The  witness  admitted  he  knew  of  an 
allotment  of  output  and  that  his  com- 
pany’s portion  was  21  per  cent,  of  the 
whole.  He  heard  little  or  nothing  of 
any  allotment  since  1900,  as  the  good 
condition  of  the  market  made  allot- 
ments quite  unnecessary.  He  would 
not  attempt  tq  speak  authoritatively, 
he  said,  on  this'  subject,  because  it  was 
no  concern  of  his  department. 

In  answer  to  a question  by  Commis- 
sioner Watkins,  Mr.  Darrow  said  tne 
miners  were  satisfied  that  the  system 
of  paying  by  weight  was  not  practica- 
ble at  the  Reading  collieries  and  were 
not  asking  for  it.  It  was  possible,  he 
said,  that  in  some  few  collieries  where 
payment  is  made  by  car,  the  miners 
would  want  a change  to  payment  by 
weight.  He  would  ask  that  the  matter 
be  left  to  the  company  and  its  em- 
ployes. If  it  was  impracticable,  Mr. 
Darrow  added,  he  was  sure  the  miners 
would  not  ask  for  it. 

John  McGuire,  former  mine  inspec- 
tor, now  division  superintendent  for  the 
Reading,  told  of  the  duties  of  the  vari- 
ous officials  of  a mine  and  of  the  de- 
tails of  mine  operations.  He  declared 
he  knew  of  no  blacklist,  and  positively 
declared  he  had  never  discriminated 


against  a man  because  of  his  connec- 
tion with  the  union. 

Mr.  Brumm,  in  cross-examining  the 
witness,  asked  him  concerning  his 
views  regarding  collective  bargaining. 
Mr.  McGuire  said  collective  bargaining 
was  all  right  until  some  one  came  be- 
tween the  company  and  the  men,  who 
had  never  as  much  as  been  inside  an 
anthracite  mine.  Mr.  Brumm  asked  for 
the  name  of  one  man  who  came  be- 
tween the  company  and  the  men,  who 
had  never  been  inside  an  anthracite 
mine.  The  witness  answered  that  Presi- 
dent John  Mitchell  was  one,  and  Dis- 
trict President  John  Fahy,  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  another.  Mr.  Fahy,  he 
said,  had  not,  unless  it  was  very  re- 
cently, seen  the  inside  of  a mine. 

Mr.  Brumm  asked  the  witness  to  give 
an  instance  when  either  of  these  men 
came  between  the  company  and  the 
men.  The  witness  replied  that  he 
thought  the  1902  strike  was  a striking 
instance  of  the  result  of  interference  by 
these  men. 

Dennis  Curley,  of  Girardville,  a for- 
mer member  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, told  of  having  been  expelled  from 
his  local  for  taking  a contract  to  sink 
a shaft  at  the  Hammond  colliery,  at  a 
“flat”  price  of  $4  for  a twelve-foot  hole, 
and  $3.75  for  an  eight-foot  hole.  Execu- 
tive Board  Member  Terrence  Ginley,  he 
said,  was  present  at  the  meeting  and 
approved  of  the  action.  The  contract 
was  taken  at  an  open  competition,  in 
which  all  the  miners  were  permitted  to 
enter.  It  developed  later  that  the  sec- 
retary of  the  local  and  others  who  voted 
to  expel  him  were  among  those  who 
made  bids. 

Treatment  of  Curley. 

Curley’s  story  of  the  treatment  ac- 
corded him  after  his  expulsion  was  as 
follows:  “Everybody  called  me  scab,’’ 

said  he.  “Even  the  goats  were  trained 
to  call  ‘sk-a-a-b.’  When  I got  on  an 
electric  car,  nobody  else  would  get  on. 
I had  lots  of  room  wherever  I went. 
Even  in  church  I had  plenty  of  elbow 
room.  Nobody  would  go  into  the  same 
pew  with  me.” 

The  witness  denied,  on  cross-exami- 
nation, that  he  took  the  contract  at  a 
price  lower  than  the  minimum  yard 
rate  plus  the  16  per  cent,  advance  of 
1900.  He  got  a better  price,  he  said, 
than  any  man  working  in  a chamber. 
The  mine  was  tied  up  for  a consider- 
able period,  because  the  company  would 
not  annul  the  contract. 

Patrick  Hoarey,  who  was  Curley’s 
partner  in  working  the  contract,  told 
that  at  the  meeting  at  which  they  were 
expelled,  it  was  admitted  that  the  dis- 
trict executive  board  member  from 
Shenandoah  had  a similar  contract. 
The  union  tried  to  get  their  laborers 
away  from  them  and  succeeded  to  some 
extent. 

David  Price,  . of  Ashland,  division 
superintendent  of  the  Reading  com- 
pany, whose  jurisdiction  extends  to  the 
Hammond  colliery,  testified  that  the 
contract  in  question  was  let  to  the  low- 


est of  nine  bidders,  and  that  the  prices 
were  very  fair.  The  contractors  were 
very  well  satisfied,  they  said,  with  their 
side  of  the  bargain. 

The  witness  also  told  that  the  drivers, 
loaders  and  headmen  refused  to  handle 
the  material  sent  out  from  the  shaft 
being  sunk  by  Curley  and  Hoarey,  and 
the  colliery  was  tied  up. 

Mr.  Brumm  tried  to  show,  on  cross- 
examination,  that  District  Board  Mem- 
ber Ginley  attempted  an  amicable  ad- 
justment of  the  strike,  and  that  Super- 
intendent Price  refused  to  negotiate 
with  him.  Superintendent  Price  said 
Mr.  Ginley  came  to  him  and  announced 
that  Curley  and  Hoarey  had  given  up 
their  job,  and  the  miners  would  return 
to  work.  He  did  not  care  to  act  on 
Mr.  Ginley’s  information  and  did  not. 
At  once  the  pumpmen  were  called  out. 
Two  days  later,  when  it  was  seen  the 
colliery  was  threatened  with  flooding, 
the  mules  were  hoisted  and  the  colliery 
abandoned.  It  is  still  abandoned. 

Superintendent  Boyd’s  Testimony. 

Adam  Boyd,  of  Shenandoah,  another 
division  superintendent,  was  the  last 
witness  of  the  day.  He  told  some  of 
the  details  of  the  destruction  of  Pres- 
ton No.  3,  which  was  touched  upon  at 
the  morning  session  by  General  Super- 
intendent Veith. 

The  colliery  was  flooded  by  a freshet 
in  December  1901.  It  was  a large  col- 
liery but  almost  worked  out  and  it 
was  a question  in  the  company’s  mind 
as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  worth  re- 
claiming. When  computations  showed 
it  could  produce  coal  in  paying  quan- 
tities for  eighteen  months  more  it  was 
decided  to  remove  the  water. 

A small  force  of  men  with  ordinary 
pumping  apparatus  was  put  at  work. 
February  8,  1902.  one  of  the  workmen 
fell  into  the  shaft  and  was  drowned. 
The  company  at  once  put  on  extra  men 
and  installed  better  apparatus  that  the 
body  might  be  quickly  recovered. 

On  July  8,  1902,  when  the  big  strike 
had  been  on  more  than  three  months, 
and  when  all  but  fifty  feet  of  the  238 
feet  of  water  had  been  pumped  out,  the 
body  was  recovered.  Before  the  body 
was  taken  to  the  surface,  John  Green, 
president  of  the  local  ordered  the  pump- 
men to  quit  work.  Superintendent 
Boyd  tried  to  reason  with  him  that 
this  was  ungrateful,  as  well  as  an  un- 
wise thing,  but  President  Green  was 
not  to  be  reasoned  with. 

Superintendent  Boyd  pointed  out  that 
the  company  had  spent  $50,000  up  to 
that  time  to  get  the  water  out:  that 
with  very  little  more  pumping  the  mine 
would  be  reclaimed  and  the  drowned 
pumps  recovered,  and  that  if  the  mine 
filled  up  again,  as  it  surely  would  if 
operations  were  not  pushed  without  in- 
terruption there  was  a strong  possibil- 
ity that  the  company  would  abandon  it 
altogether. 

President  Green  answered  that  he 
didn’t  care.  The  men  must  quit  work. 
Superintendent  Boyd  reminded  him  of 
the  Hammond  colliery  which  had  to  be 


abandoned  because  of  the  pumpmen 
being  called  out  and  which  abandon- 
ment left  four  hundred  hands  idle  and 
dealt  a severe  blow  to  the  town  of 
Girardville.  President  Green’s  answer 
was  that  they  had  gotten  along  with- 
out the  Hammond  and  could  get  along 
without  the  Preston. 

The  pumpmen  did  not  want  to  obey 
the  order,  but  at  a meeting  of  the  local 
that  night  their  protests  were  overruled 
and  they  had  to.  quit.  The  mine  flood- 
ed up,  is  still  filled  up  and  the  company 
is  not  likely  to  again  attempt  to  re- 
claim it. 

St.  Clair  Coal  Company’s  Case. 

The  case  of  the  St.  Clair  Coal  com- 
pany, of  St.  Clair,  Schuylkill  county, 
was  presented  at  the  morning  session 
by  its  president,  W.  ' H.  Taylor,  of 
Scranton.  He  read  an  extended  open- 
ing address,  discussing  the  demands  of 
the  miners  and  setting  forth  facts  and 
figures,  concerning  hours,  wages  and 
general  conditions  at  his  colliery. 

The  following  is  the  statement  pre- 
sented: 

In  presenting  to  this  commission  the 
following  facts  and  figures  it  is  to  be 
understood  that  they  particularly  relate 
to  the  St.  Clair  Coal  company  and  its 
employes,  while  they  may  no  doubt,  in 
many  instances,  befound  applicable  to  the 
entire  anthracite  mining  industry. 

We  believe  it  may  be  safely  stated,  and 
we  shall  try  so  to  prove,  that  the 
miners’  statement  as  filed  with  the  com- 
mission was  drawn  up  by  parties  quite 
unfamiliar  with  the  actual  conditions  ex- 
isting in  the  anthracite  fields,  or  else  it 
is,  in  the  main,  a deliberate  misstatement 
of  facts. 

Increase  in  Wages. 

In  answer  to  the  reasons  as  set  forth  in 
the  miners’  statement  demanding  an  in- 
crease of  20  per  cent,  in  wages,  we  offer 
the  following: 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  1. — “The 
present  rate  of  wages  is  much  lower  than 
the  rate  of  wages  paid  in  the  bituminous 
coal  fields  for  substantially  similar  work.” 

Answer. — As  we  are  not  interested  in 
the  mining  of  bituminous  coal,  we  can 
only  state  that  this  reason  appears  to  be 
denied  by  the  fact  that  almost  all  of  the 
miners  who  left  for  work  in  the  bitumin- 
ous fields  during  the  late  strike,  have 
either  returned  to  the  anthracite  fields  or 
have  expressed  their  intention  of  return- 
ing. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  2. — “The 
present  rate  of  wages  is  lower  than  is 
paid  in  other  occupations  requiring  equal 
skill  and  training." 

Answer. — The  present  rate  of  wages,  as 
shown  by  the  facts  and  figures  already 
presented  to  this  commission,  is  not  lower 
than  is  paid  in  other  occupations,  requir- 
ing equal  skill  and  training,  for,  so  fa.r  as 
it  relates  to  the  actual  mining  of  coal  and 
the  labor  connected  therewith,  any  rea- 
sonably intelligent  man  can  learn  to  do 
in  about  one  year’s  time  (the  law  pre- 
scribes only  two  years)  all  that  any 
miner  or  his  laborer  is  called  upon  to  do 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  his  work,  and 
intelligent  laborers,  who  cannot  hold  a 
miner’s  certificate  simply  because  they 
have  not  been  at  work  for  the  two  years’ 
time  as  specified  under  the  terms  of  the 
law,  are  perfectly  able  and,  at  times,  are 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

allowed  by  the  miners  to  do  certain  parts 
of  the  miners’  own  work. 

Where  is  the  trade  or  occupation  in- 
volving so  little  time  for  training  that 
can  show  the  earning  powers  of  the  an- 
thracite miners? 

The  commission  will  no  doubt  note  that 
the  exhibited  earnings  of  the  miners  and 
their  laborers  do  not  show  their  earning 
capacity  nor  opportunity;  they  simply 
show  what  they  were  willing  to  do  and 
earn,  and  not  what  they  were  able  to  do 
or  what  they  could  have  earned. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  3. — “The 
average  annual  earnings  in  the  anthra- 
cite coal  fields  are  much  less  than  the 
average  annual  earnings  in  the  bitumin- 
ous coal  fields  for  substantially  similar 
work.” 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  4. — “The 
average  annual  earnings  in  the  anthi-a- 
cite  coal  fields  are  much  less  than  the 
average  annual  earnings  for  occupations 
requiring  equal  skill  and  training.” 

Answer.— These  are  practically  repeti- 
tions of  Reasons  No.  1 and  No.  2,  and  the 
same  answers  will  apply. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  5 — “The  rate 
of  wages  in  the  anthracite  coal  fields  is 
insufficient  to  compensate  the  mine  work- 
ers, in  view  of  the  dangerous  character 
of  the  occupation  in  relation  to  accidents, 
the  liability  to  serious  and  permanent 
disease,  the  high  death  rate  and  the  short 
grade  life  incident  to  this  employment.” 

Answer — Modern  methods  have  so  large- 
ly decreased  the  dangerous  character  of 
mining,  that  the  death  and  accident  rate 
does  not  new  equal  that  of  many  other 
so-called  hazardous  ocupations,  and  would 
be  much  less  if  the  miners  themselves 
would  habitually  use  even  ordinary  care 
to  prevent  accidents. 

The  number  of  aged  men  throughout  the 
anthracite  coal  fields  who  have  spent 
their  lives  in  and  about  the  mines,  and 
who  are  still  hale  and  hearty,  is  in  itself 
a sufficient  refutation  of  the  “short  grade 
life”  theory  advanced  by  the  Miners’ 
union. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  6— “The  an- 
nual earnings  of  the  mine  workers  are  in- 
sufficient to  maintain  the  American 
standard  of  living.” 

Answer — The  annual  earnings  of  the 
mine  worker  can  easily  be  made,  by  him- 
self, sufficient  to  maintain  the  “Ameri- 
can standard  of  living”  if  he  wishes  to 
maintain  such  a standard  and  is  willing 
to  do  those  things,  both  during  and  after 
working  hours,  that  are  consistent  with 
such  a standard.  It  is,  therefore,  en- 
tirely a question  for  him  to  determine  for 
himself. 

Again,  where  you  have  seen  the  great- 
est poverty;  i.  e.,  among  the  so-called 
“foreign  element”;  will  you  not  have  put 
before  you,  through  the  proper  postoffice, 
banking  and  steamship  agency  channels, 
a statement  showing  the  amount  of 
money  which  has  been  sent  every  two 
weeks  from  the  anthracite  fields  to  for- 
eign lands,  and  this  will  show  the  true 
reason  for  the  failure  on  the  part  of  so 
many  of  the  members  of  the  United  Mine 
■Workers  of  America  to  live  up  to  the 
“American  standard  of  living.” 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  7— “The  in- 
creased cost  of  living  has  made  it  impos- 
sible to  maintain  a fair  standard  of  life 
upon  the  basis  of  present  wages,  and  has 
not  only  prevented  the  mine  workers 
from  securing  any  benefit  from  increased 
prosperity,  but  has  made  their  condition 
poorer  on  account  of  it.” 

Answer — Had  the  miners  been  faithful 
to  themselves  and  to  the  companies  for 


189 

whom  they  worked,  then  the  net  in- 
crease to  them  through  the  advance  given 
them  in  1900,  together  with  the  opportun- 
ity for  steady  work  since  that  time,  could 
and  would  have  added  to  their  earnings 
an  amount  in  excess  of  any  increased 
cost  of  living  during  that  time. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  8 — "The 
wages  of  the  anthracite  mine  workers  are 
so  low  that  their  children  are  premature- 
ly forced  into  the  breakers  and  mills  in- 
stead of  being  supported  and  educated 
upon  the  earnings  of  their  parents.” 
Answer— It  is  not  true  that  “the  wages 
of  the  anthracite  mine  workers  are  so  low 
that  their  children  are  prematurely 
forced  into  the  breakers  and  mills  instead 
of  being  supported  and  educated  upon  the 
earnings  of  their  parents,”  but,  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  a well  known  fact  that 
children  of  miners  are  sometimes  put  to 
work  to  support  the  parents  in  idleness. 

As  to  many  of  the  younger  lads  being 
at  work  in  the  breaker,  if  every  member 
of  this  body  had  had  the  experience  which 
I believe  some  of  you  have  had,  and 
w-hich  we  have  had;  to  have  the  widow 
come,  the  widow  left  in  need  of  sup- 
port through  causes  entirely  beyond  her 
control,  you  . would  not  wonder  that  some 
boys  were  found  at  work  in  the  breakers. 

It  is  also  a well  known  fact  that  many 
of  the  hoys  will  not  go  to  school,  but 
prefer  to  work. 

Employment  of  Children. 

The  facts  at  St.  Clair  as  to  the  employ- 
ment of  children  of  the  employes  of  St. 
Clair  Coal  company  are  as  follows: 

Out  of  485  children,  under  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  of  the  workmen  In  and 
about  the  mine  of  the  St.  Clair  Coal  com- 
pany, there  are  but  the  following  at  work: 


Boys. 

Girls.  Total. 

Under  the  age  of 

16 

years  

...  19 

4 23 

Between  16  and 

21 

years  

...  35 

10  45 

Grand  total  

And  their  ocupations  are  as  follows: 
Males  under  16  years  of  age — 


In  breaker  17 

In  mines  1 

In  silk  mil! 1 

— 19 

Females  under  16  years  of  age— 

In  silk  mill  1 

In  factory  1 

Clerking  1 

Servant 1 

— 4 

Males  16  to  21  years  of  age — 

Pump  runner  1 

Head  of  shaft  2 

Inside  of  mines  11 

Locomotive  helper  1 

Breaker  6 

Outside  laborer  4 

Miners  5 

Clerking  1 

Telegrapher  1 

Steel  mill  2 

Railroader  1 

Reading  law  1 36 

Females  16  to  21  years  of  age— 

Silk  mill  2 

Factory  4 

School  teacher  1 

Servants  3 

— 10 

Total  males  and  females  16  to 

21  years  of  age  46 

— 46 

Grand  total  69 


190 


PROCEEDINGS  of  the  anthracite 


The  actual  net  earnings  (exclusive  of 
the  earnings  of  the  children),  for  the 
year  1901,  of  the  fathers  of  these  children 
are  as  follows: 


12 

$526.60 

244 

13 

817.67 

247 

13 

701.75 

387 

13 

568.20 

306 

13 

381.47 

284 

13 

140.49 

79 

13 

54.16 

19 

14 

806.75 

258 

14 

600.45 

234 

14 

568.20 

206 

14 

525.60 

241 

14 

519.42 

211 

14 

467.65 

199 

14 

299.11 

139 

14 

113.69 

17 

15 

923.27 

222 

15 

772.92 

246 

15 

655.60 

292 

15 

562.09 

310 

15 

551.10 

348 

15 

272.08 

188 

15 

233.76 

129 

15 

113.69 

47 

15 

87.31 

87 

16 

536.85 

374 

16 

433.26 

273 

16 

298.53 

177 

16 

258.93 

189 

16 

210.98 

96 

16 

140.49 

79 

16 

81.07 

49 

16 

54.16 

19 

17 

936.90 

429 

17 

923.27 

222 

17 

726.48 

347 

17 

655.60 

29S 

17 

535.70 

244 

17 

397.93 

237 

17 

381.47 

284 

17 

299.90 

117 

17 

113.69 

17 

17 

57.62 

15 

17 

30.11 

18 

18 

721.60 

328 

18 

628.72 

372 

18 

450.98 

252 

18 

402.73 

284 

18 

349.85 

251 

18 

210.98 

96 

19 

914.83 

249 

19 

753.10 

376 

19 

728.48 

347 

19 

595.65 

346 

19 

536.70 

241 

19 

519.42 

211 

19 

467.65 

199 

19 

258.93 

189 

19 

235.16 

171 

19 

150.62 

64 

19 

133.44 

75 

19 

87.31 

37 

19 

30.11 

18 

19 

14.30 

12 

20 

920.01 

239 

20 

721.60 

328 

20 

623.72 

372 

20 

210.98 

96 

20 

57.62 

15 

•The 

number  of  days 

he  worked, 

based 

on  ten 

hours,  would  be 

much  larger 

Schooling  of  Children. 

As  regards  sending  their  children  to 


school,  while  the  married  mine  workers 
with  families  in  St.  Clair  constitute  60  per 
cent,  of  the  whole  number  of  married 
men  with  families  in  St.  Clair,  the  per- 
centage of  their  children  attending  school 
in  1901  was  69  per  cent,  of  the  whole,  and 
the  mine  workers  were  the  only  class  who 
had  children  13  years  of  age  attending 
school  in  St.  Clair  during  1901. 

These  figures  are,  in  themselves,  a suf- 
ficient refutation  of  the  mine  workers' 
claim  that  “wages  of  anthracite  mine 
workers  are  so  low  that  their  children 
are  prematurely  forced  into  the  breakers 
and  mills  instead  of  being  supported  and 
educated  upon  the  earnings  of  their  par- 
ents.’’ 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  9. — “Wages 
are  below  the  fair  and  just  earnings  of 
mine  workers  in  this  industry.” 

Answer.— This  statement  is  not  borne 
out  by  the  facts  which  have  been  pre- 
sented to  this  commission. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  10. — “The 
ten-hour  day  is  detrimental  to  the  health, 
life,  safety  and  well-being  of  the  mine 
workers.” 

Answer. — The  average  time  for  hte 
miner  at  St.  Clair  colliery  does  not  ex- 
ceed eight  hours,  and  the  time  actually 
devoted  by  him  to  work  does  not  exceed 
six  hours. 

This  statement  will  apply  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  when  the  public  is  in  need  of 
coal,  as  well  as  to  previous  years,  and, 
according  to  the  statement  made  by  Mi. 
Mitchell  before  this  commission!,  this 
short  time  is  the  result  of  orders  from 
the  United  Mine  Workers’  headquarters 
as  to  the  amount  of  coal  their  members 
should  prepare. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  11.— “Shorter 
hours  improve  the  physical,  mental  and 
moral  condition  of  the  workers.” 

Answer.— It  is  true  that  shorter  hours 
would  improve  the  physical,  mental  and 
moral  condition  of  the  workers,  providing 
their  spare  hours  were  properly  spent; 
but  we  state,  without  fear  of  successful 
contradiction,  that  they  are  not  so  spent, 
and  this  commission  in  its  travels 
throughout  the  anthracite  coal  fields  did 
not  find  the  ground  surrounding  the 
homes  of  the  idle  miners  "blooming  like 
the  rose,”  notwithstanding  five  months  of 
idle  hours  had  passed,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, where  it  had  previously  existed, 
you  found  the  same  shiftless,  uncultivat- 
ed “patch,”  with  its  unkempt  appearance, 
that  has  been  there  for  years. 

You  can  present  the  opportunity  for  the 
man,  but  you  cannot  make  the  man.  That 
remains  for  himself  to  accomplish. 

The  above  does  not  apply  very  largely 
to  St.  Clair,  for  in  that  town  of  miners’ 
homes  you  will  find  many  places  worthy 
of  notice,  and  when  we  tell  you  that  un- 
encumbered real  estate  in  St.  Clair  of  the 
assessed  valuation  of  $104,131.00,  and  actual 
value  about  $300,000.00,  is  owned  by  miners 
or  relatives,  the  property  being  purchased 
with  money  made  in  or  about  the  mines, 
and  some  of  the  parties  owming  not  only 
one  house,  but  two,  three,  four,  five  and 
six  houses,  you  will  agree  with  us  that  in 
St.  Clair  there  is  not  so  much  shiftless- 
ness and  improvidence;  neither  is  there 
the  net  result  of  the  same. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  12.— "Shorter 
hours  increase  the  intensity  and  efficiency 
of  labor.” 

Answer.— Past  actual  experience  denies, 
and  has  disproved  the  statement  that 
shorter  hours  increase  the  intensity  and 
efficiency  of  labor,  so  far  as  it  relates  to 
the  anthracite  mines  and  employes  in  and 
about  the  mines. 


Again,  it  will  not  do  to  state  that  any 
increase  in  pay  will  be  compensated  to 
the  operator  in  the  increased  efficiency  of 
the  men  owing  to  the  settled  condition  of 
affairs  for  whatever  term  this  commission 
might  agree  these  wages  should  continue, 
because:  First,  a very  large  proportion 
of  the  men  are  doing  such  class  of  worx 
that  their  earning  efficiency  to  the  com- 
pany cannot  be  increased;  second,  the 
natural  disposition  of  the  miners  to  be 
content  with  certain  earnings  will  pre- 
vent any  material  gain  to  the  operator 
in  that  direction;  third,  the  conditions 
under  which  any  advance  would  now  be 
given  them  would,  if  history  repeats  >t- 
self,  have  the  tendency  to  decrease  the 
desire  for  work  on  the  part  of  the  men. 
and  thus  entail  on  the  part  of  the  opera- 
tors, the  increased  expenses  of  additional 
help  to  accomplish  the  same  work. 

Weighing  of  Coal. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  weighing 
of  coal  in  the  Schuylkill  region  is  not  a 
practical  matter,  -we  do  not  believe  that  it 
is  necessary  for  us  to  discuss  the  same. 

Mine  Workers'  Reason  No.  13. — “The 
tendency  of  national  and  state  govern- 
ment, of  organized  trade  and  of  produc- 
tion generally,  is  toward  shorter  hours.” 

Answer.— This  can  truthfully  be  better 
stated,  that  the  tendency  of  national  and 
state  politicians,  and  of  organized  trade 
unionism,  and  of  incompetent  producers 
generally,  is  to  destroy  all  ambition  of  the 
true  workman  and,  as  one  of  the  labor 
leaders  expressed  to  us,  inculcate  the 
sentiment  that  the  good  workman  must 
carry  the  poor  one  and  both  be  equally 
paid,  regardless  of  whether  or  not  the 
good  workman  could  do  the  work  better 
and  in  much  less  time  than  would  be  re- 
quired by  the  poor  workman. 

Wage  Agreement  with  the  Union. 

Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  i. — “Tne  an- 
thracite mine  workers  should  not  be  com- 
pelled to  make  or  sign  individual  agree- 
ments, but  should  have  the  right  to  form 
such  organization  and  choose  such  agents 
as  they  desire  to  act  collectively  instead 
of  individually  when  they  deem  their  best 
interests  are  subserved  thereby.” 

Answer. — We  do  not  deny  the  right  of 
men  to  organize,  but  we  do  deny  the 
moral  right  of  the  miners  of  any  one  col- 
liery being  placed  in  position  by  their 
vote,  through  superior  numbers  or  other- 
wise, to  shut  down  another  colliery  where 
no  grievance  nor  cause  for  grievance  ex- 
ists. 

Mine  Workers'  Reason  No.  2. — "Unions 
of  workingmen  tend  to  the  better  disci- 
pline of  the  man  and  to  the  improvement 
of  their  physical,  moral  and  mental  con- 
ditibns.  and  to  the  preservation  of  friend- 
ly relations  between  employer  and  em- 
ploye.” 

Answer.- We  deny  that  unions  of  work- 
ingmen. as  now  organized  and  conducted, 
tend  to  the  better  discipline  of  the  man 
and  to  the  improvement  of  their  physical, 
moral  and  mental  condition  and  to  the 
preservation  of  friendly  relations  between 
employer  and  employe,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary. affirm  that  the  entire  line  of  teach- 
ing of  the  union  as  now  conducted  tends 
to  absolutely  destroy  all  sense  of  disci- 
pline; tends  to  a moral  disregard  of  any 
sense  of  true  improvement  of  the  physical 
conditions;  tends,  through  socialistic  and 
anarchistic  teachings,  to  a depravity  of 
the  moral  and  mental  conditions,  and 
tends  to  absolutely  destroy  that  friendly 
relation  which  should  exist  between  em- 
ployers and  employe. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


191 


Mine  Workers’  Reason  No.  3.— “Experi- 
ence shows  that  the  trade  agreement  is 
the  only  effective  method  by  which  it  is 
possible  to  regulate  questions  arising  be- 
tween employers  and  employed  in  large 
industries,  and  that  a trade  agreement  is 
the  only  possible  way  to  establish  the  re- 
lations between  employers  and  wage- 
workers in  the  anthracite  fields  on  a just 
and  permanent  basis  and  as  far  as  pos- 
sible do  away  with  any  causes  for  the 
recurrence  of  such  difficulties  as  those 
you  (the  anthracite  coal  strike  commis- 
sion) have  been  called  upon  to  settle.” 

Answer. — Experience  shows  that  trade 
agreements  do  not  regulate  questions  aris- 
ing between  employers  and  employes  in 
large  or  small  industries  unless  both  par- 
ties to  the  agreement  honestly  desire  to 
carry  out  the  same,  and  in  those  coun- 
tries where  trade  unionism  is  at  its  best 
strikes  are  not  infrequent. 

Therefore,  while  we  are  not  opposed  to 
unionism  properly  conducted,  and  while 
we  believe  that  “in  union  there  is 
strength,”  yet  we  also  believe  that  the 
union  as  organized  and  conducted  today 
is  a menace  to  our  American  government, 
and  whatever  is  a menace  to  our  govern- 
ment is  a menace  to  every  workingman, 
as  well  as  to  every  employer. 

Every  dispute  between  employer  and 
employe  should  be  settled  between  them- 
selves, and  when  this  cannot  be  done, 
then  arbitration,  without  cessation  of  la- 
bor, should  be  called  upon  to  deal  with 
each  particular  case. 

Policy  vs.  Principle. 

It  has  been  said  that  both  sides  to  this 
controversy  believe  they  are  fighting  for 
a principle. 

We  deny  this. 

The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America 
know  they  are  fighting  for  a policy;  not 
a principle. 

They  are  fighting  for  the  privilege  of 
controlling  the  action  of  every  person, 
whether  a member  of  the  union  or  not. 

They  are  fighting  for  the  privilege  of 


arbitrarily  fixing  the  wages  and  earnings 
of  incompetent,  lazy,  shiftless  men  at  the 
expense  of  the  competent,  energetic  and 
thrifty  men. 

They  are  fighting  for  the  privilege  of 
arbitrarily  fixing  the  hours  of  labor  re- 
gardless of  the  needs  -or  desires  of  the 
man,  the  employer  or  the  public. 

They  are  not  fighting  for  the  right  to 
organize,  for  that  has  never  been  denied 
them. 

They  are  fighting  to  give  to  their  or- 
ganization the  power  to  enforce  their  un- 
reasonable, un-American,  non-liberty 
policies. 

What  would  be  the  logical  outcome  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers’  policy? 

Would  it  not  be  to  eventually  change 
our  national  system  of  government  if  by 
any  method  of  force  they  take  from  your 
sons  or  the  sons  of  the  humblest  working- 
men, the  right  to  develop  to  the  highest 
possible  extent  his  God-given  abilities? 

Is  not  this  what  they  are  doing  in  fact 
when  they  state  that  a man  shall  not 
work  for  whom  he  pleases,  at  what  wages 
he  pleases,  when  he  pleases  (consistent 
with  the  laws  of  the  land),  and  give  to  his 
employer  his  very  best  efforts  upon  a 
basis  mutually  agreed  upon  between  him 
and  his  employer? 

Is  not  this  what  they  are  doing  when 
they  say  to  any  man,  when  he  proposes 
to  work  according  to  the  dictates  of  his 
own  conscience,  “Thou  shait  not,”  or 
when  they  say  to  any  employer  of  labor, 
“Thou  shait  not  employ  this  or  that 
man?” 

Ts  not  this  what  they  are  doing  when 
they  practically  say  to  any  man,  "You 
shall  do  so  much  work  and  no  more  for  a 
day’s  labor,”  and  also  limit  the  number 
of  days  on  which  he  shall  labor? 

Is  not  this  what  they  are  doing  when 
they  measure  the  standard  of  wages  for 
the  poorest  workman  somewhat  beyond 
his  honest  earning  capacity  and  compel 
the  best  workman  to  accept  this  same 
wage,  even  though  it  lessen  his  earning 
capacity? 


What  the  Operators  Want. 

The  operators  are  fighting  for  a prin- 
ciple. 

Namely,  individual  rights,  the  rights  of 
every  individual,  whether  a member  of  a 
labor  organization  or  not,  to  labor  for 
whom  he  chooses,  when  he  chooses  (con- 
sistent with  the  law3  of  the  country),  on 
whatever  terms  he  and  his  employer  may 
mutually  agree  upon. 

The  operators  are  fighting  for  the  right 
of  any  person  to  quit  work,  and  the  equal 
right  of  any  employer  to  discharge. 

The  operators  are  fighting  for  the  right 
of  any  employer  to  employ,  consistent 
with  the  laws  of  the  country,  any  person 
he  may  desire  on  terms  mutually  agree 
able,  without  interference  or  dictation 
from  any  disinterested  party. 

Rate  of  wages  is  not  a part  of  this 
question  of  principle,  for  any  difference 
as  to  wages  could  at  all  times  be  ad- 
justed. 

It  is  a question  of  control.  The  right 
of  any  employe,  and  the  equal  right  of 
any  employer  to  control,  consistent  with 
the  laws  of  the  country,  his  own  actions 
and  property. 

Finally,  gentlemen,  as  we  view  it  this 
commission  has  not  been  called  upon  to 
decide  a question  alone  of  wages;  you 
have  not  been  called  Upon  to  decide  a 
question  alone  of  hours;  you  have  been 
called  upon,  to  do  a far  greater  work, 
namely,  to  again  set  forth  clearly  before 
the  people  of  the  United  States  a true  in- 
terpretation and  an  emphatic  reiteration 
of  the  great  fundamental  truth  that  a 
man’s  personal  liberty  in  the  exercise  of 
his  just  and  proper  rights  must  never  be 
interfered  with  nor  curtailed. 

Commissioner  Gray  suggested  that 
Mr.  Taylor  might  file  the  statistical 
part  of  his  address,  and  defer  testimony 
in  consideration  of  it  until  the  miners’ 
accountants  chose  to  challenge  its  aver- 
ments. Mr.  Taylor  acquiesced  in  Judge 
Gray’s  idea. 


Proceedings  of  Friday,  Jan.  30. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Jan.  31.] 


Philadelphia,  Jan.  30. — All  of  the 
direct  evidence  the  mine  strike  com- 
mission will  hear  has  at  last  been  pre- 
sented, excepting  for  some  general 
statistics  to  be  presented  jointly  by  the 
operators  and  which  can  be  presented 
in  a very  few  hours. 

At  4.45  o’clock  this  afternoon  the 
commission  heard  the  last  of  the  Phila- 
delphia and  Reading  company’s  wit- 
nesses, and  adjourned  until  Monday 
morning,  when  the  general  statistics 
of  the  operators  will  be  submitted  and 
the  miners’  case  in  rebuttal  opened.  Mr. 
barrow  told  the  commission  he  can 
finish  with  his  rebuttal  testimony  by 
Thursday.  It  was  agreed  that  adjourn- 
ment should  be  taken  from  next  Thurs- 
day until  the  following  Monday,  when 
the  arguments  will  be  opened.  No 
definite  arrangement  was  made  regard- 
ing the  time  to  be  consumed  by  the 
arguments  but  the  commission  rather 
broadly  intimated  that  it  expects  to 
have  a full  week  of  it. 

Some  witty  exchanges  took  place  be- 
tween the  commissioners  and  lawyers 


while  the  apportionment  of  time  for 
arguments  was  being  discussed.  The 
usually  silent  commissioner,  Parker, 
scored  heaviest  during  the  exchange. 

A recess  from  Thursday  till  Monday, 
Judge  Gray  suggested  would  probably 
result  in  the  arguments  being  more 
concisely  arranged. 

“Yes  it  will  give  you  time  to  put  a 
condenser  on  them,”  remarked  Bishop 
Spalding. 

“An  air  condenser,  I would  suggest” 
came  from  the  far  end  of  the  bench 
where  Mr.  Parker  was  seated  alongside 
the  bishop.  It  was  not  believed  for 
some  time  that  Mr.  Parker  was  the 
guilty  one,  but  all  doubt  was  set  aside 
by  Bishop  Spalding  denying  he  had 
said  it. 

The  commission  has  now  been  in  ses- 
sion forty-six  days,  taking  testimony. 
Of  the  490  witnesses  heard,  174  were  call- 
ed by  the  union  miners;  154  by  the  non- 
unionists;  8 by  the  commissioners,  and 
154  by  the  operators.  The  sessions  be- 
gan in  Scranton,  November  13  and  have 
had  two  interruptions  one  of  ten  days, 


when  an  unsuccessful  effort  was  made 
to  settle  the  controversy  out  of  court, 
and  one  of  two  weeks  during  the 
Christmas  holidays.  The  testimony 
covers  8,000  pages  of  typewriting,  aver- 
aging 300  words  to  the  page. 

Railroad  Earnings. 

Much  of  the  discussion  prior  to  and 
during  the  strike  regarding  miners’ 
wages,  centered  around  the  earnings  of 
the  Philadelphia  and  Reading  employes. 
President  Baer’s  statement  that  it  aver- 
aged $1.84  a day  for  all  classes  of  work- 
men was  analyzed  by  President  Mitch- 
ell, with  a resultant  deduction  that  for 
the  normal  working  days  of  a year  this 
would  be  $1.01  a day.  Each  of  the  dis- 
putants alleged  the  other’s  presentation 
of  the  facts  of  the  case  was  unfair  and 
misleading,  and  his  own  the  only  just 
and  accurate  presentation. 

Consequently,  much  interest  attached 
to  the  detailed  statistics  of  the  Reading 
company  as  presented  this  morning  by 
J.  P.  Jones,  the  paymaster.  They  were 
very  elaborate,  comprehensi\e  and  ex- 


192 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


haustive.  All  the  original  pay-rolls 
were  brought  In  and  submitted,  and 
with  them  were  summaries  neatly  and 
conveniently  arranged.  Mr.  Darrow  was 
content  with  the  summaries.  The  orig- 
inal books  had  been  examined  by  the 
miners’  experts,  Mr.  Marwick  and  Dr. 
Weyl,  and  they  attested  the  accuracy  of 
the  summaries.  The  miners  were  given 
the  privilege  of  going  to  the  company’s 
office  and  inspecting  any  and  all  books 
and  papers  bearing  on  the  question  of 
earnings. 

The  summaries  showed  that  average 
earnings  of  all  of  the  26,000  men  and 
boys  employed  by  the  company,  exclud- 
ing contract  miners,  bosses,  clerks,  in- 
spectors and  the  like,  were  $1.66  2-10  a 
day  for  242  1-10  days,  or  $402.31  for  a 
year. 

Average  for  Contract  Miners. 

The  general  average  for  5,386  contract 
miners,  at  all  of  the  thirty-seven  col- 
lieries, who  worked,  substantially,  the 
full  number  of  days  the  breaker  started, 
was  $652.82.  This  was  for  260  days. 

To  summarize  the  earnings  of  all  the 
contract  miners  of  the  thirty-seven  col- 
lieries according  to  the  form  stipulated 
by  the  commissioners  after  the  hear- 
ings had  begun,  would  have  been  a 
stupendous  task  and  could  not  have 
been  finished  for  several  months.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  commissioners,  after 
making  inquiry  on  their  own  account, 
selected  nine  of  the  thirty-seven  col- 
lieries to  form  the  basis  of  the  wage 
statements.  These  nine  collieries,  it  was 
calculated,  are  fairly  representative  by 


average  of  the  average 

of  the  whole. 

The  statements  of  wages 

at  these  col- 

lieries  were  as  follows: 

Summary  of  annual  earnings  of  contract 

miners  at  Bear 

Ridge, 

Good  Spring, 

Kohinoor,  Potts, 

Draper, 

Indian  Ridge, 

Preston  No.  3,  Richardson,  Turkey  Run 

—Philadelphia  and  Reading  Coal  and 

Iron  company  collieries— these  being  the 

nine  collieries  selected  by  the  commis- 

siaon  from  the  thirty-seven  (87)  Reading 

operations,  for  the  purpose  of  preparing 

wage  statements: 

No.  of 

Average  shifts 

men.  worked  per  man. 

$1,000  and  over  

. 24 

265.8 

900  to  $1,000  

. 32 

254.3 

800  to  900  

. 46 

249.7 

700  to  800  

. 86 

244.7 

600  to  700  

. 130 

230.9 

500  to  600  

. 188 

214.8 

400  to  500  

. 140 

180.7 

300  to  400  

. 136 

143.5 

200  to  300  

. 160 

103.2 

Less  than  200  

. 901 

2S1. 

SUMMARY  OF 

DAYS 

WORKED. 

No. 

Average  earn- 

of  men 

ings  per  man. 

800  days  and  over.. 

$984  99 

’275  to  300  

..  7 

1,016  S4 

250  to  275  

...  128 

806  07 

225  to  250 

. ..  206 

661  9S 

200  to  225  

. ..  148 

56S  28 

175  to  200  

...  99 

493  16 

150  to  175  

...  90 

417  90 

125  to  150  

...  84 

336  20 

100  to  125  

...  108 

288  21 

75  to  100  

. ..  118 

208  84 

Less  than  J5  

...  S52 

52  75 

Average  Day  Wages. 

Some  of  the  average  day  wages  of 
company  hands  (composite  men)  were 


as  follows: 

Repair  men  $2  25 

Road  men  •. 2 03 

Bottom  men  2 00 

Car  runners  1 S6 

Spraggers  1 25 

Door  boys  0 95 

Pumpmen  2 02 

Drivers  1 71 

Loaders  1 96 

Day  miners  2 32 

Day  laborers  1 93 

Miners'  laborers  2 06 

Carpenters  2 20 

Blacksmiths  2 27 

Hoisting  engineers  2 10 

Pumping  engineers  2 02 

Firemen  ’ 1 79 


On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Darrow 
sought  to  show  that  the  figures  were 
really  nothing  more  than  estimates,  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  they  dealt  with 
composite  men,  instead  of  actual  indi- 
viduals. Mr.  Wolverton  contended  that 
the  “composite  man”  system  was  the 
only  fair  way  to  get  at  earnings.  Judge 
Gray  said  the  commission  would  not  be 
led  into  false  deductions  by  reason  of 
the  method  employed  in  framing  tire 
statistics. 

Discharge  of  Clark  Explained. 

John  E.  Davis,  foreman  of  the  Potts 
colliery,  who  discharged  James  Clark,  a 
miner,  who  testified  for  the  union  side 
at  Scranton,  explained  that  Clark  was 
discharged  because  he  went  to  Scran- 
ton without  giving  the  foreman  any 
notice.  Another  man  was  put  in  his 
place,  when  after  three  days  he  did  not 
put  in  an  appearance. 

Judge  Gray  said  he  thought  the  dis- 
charge of  Clark  was  not  justifiable  and 
hoped  no  man  would  be  hurt  by  reason 
of  his  having  given  testimony  before 
the  commission.  Turning  to  General 
Superintendent  Veith,  Judge  Gray  per- 
sonally requested  that  Clark  be  rein- 
stated. Mr.  Veith  said  he  would  see  to 
it  that  Clark  was  put  back  at  work. 

Judge  Gray  was  very  plainly  dis- 
pleased at  Clark’s  dismissal. 

James  Wilson,  superintendent  at 
Hammond  and  Preston  No.  3 collieries, 
told  of  some  strike  violence  and  gave  it 
as  his  opinion  that  a reduction  of  the 
working  day  from  ten  to  eight  hours 
would  restrict  output  and  earnings  pro- 
portionately. 

Patrick  Brennan,  district  superintend- 
ent, expressed  a similar  opinion.  Prior 
to  1900,  he  said,  the  output  was  re- 
stricted by  market  conditions.  Now  the 
demand  for  coal  is  such  that  the  com- 
panies can  not  supply  it. 

Damage  at  Henry  Clay  Colliery. 

Mr.  Brennan  told  of  the  Henry  Clay 
colliery,  near  Shamokin,  being  thrown 
idle  by  flooding  during  the  strike.  There 
was  100  feet  of  water  in  the  800-foot 
shaft  when  the  strike  broke  out.  The 
regular  force  of  pumpmen  quit  and 
their  places  were  filled  with  imports. 
National  Organizer  Dougherty  and 
others  of  the  officers  of  the  United 


Mine  Workers  succeeded  in  getting  the 
new  men  to  quit.  The  consequence  was 
that  the  water  rose  to  a height  of  500 
feet.  Since  the  strike  the  water  has 
been  reduced  400  feet.  It  will  be  two 
months,  the  witness  said,  before  the 
mine  can  be  reopened.  The  lowest  level, 
it  is  estimated,  will  not  be  cleared  for 
eight  months. 

July  1,  an  attempt  was  made  to  wreck 
the  pumping  apparatus  in  the  shaft  by 
loosening  heavy  timbers  at  the  head  of 
the  shaft  and  allowing  them  to  drop 
down  on  the  hoisting  tank.  A second 
attempt  was  made  to  do  this  same 
thing,  a few  weeks  later,  but  a watch- 
man had  been  stationed  there  and  he 
drove  off  the  attempted  wreckers  by 
firing  upon  them. 

The  engineers  at  the  Henry  Clay  col- 
liery were  working  eight  hours  when 
they  struck.  They  were  compelled  to 
quit  because  the  firemen  were  not 
granted  on  eight-hour  day. 

Mr.  Darrow  elicited  from  the  witness 
that  before  being  made  a boss  he  was 
a member  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and 
tried  to  get  an  admission  from  him 
that  he  then  advocated  the  eight-hour 
day.  The  witness  said  he  favored  an 
eight-hour  day  under  some  conditions, 
but  not  under  the  present  conditions  in 
coal  mining.  If  the  day  was  shortened, 
the  output  would  be  decreased,  the 
cost  of  operation  increased,  the  public 
compelled  to  pay  higher  prices  for 
coal. 

Mr.  Darrow  suggested  that  more  men 
could  be  hired.  The  witness  replied 
that  this  was  easier  said  than  done, 
and  that,  at  all  events,  the  hiring  of 
enough  more  men  to  make  up  for  the 
loss  of  output  resulting  from  a shorter 
day  would  necessitate  the  added  ex- 
pense of  new  openings  and  new 
breakers. 

Wanted  to  Continue  Work. 

Edward  Morgan,  who  was  a pump- 
ing engineer  at  the  Henry  Clay  colliery 
before  the  strike,  told  that  he  wanted 
to  continue  at  work  because  he  had 
the  eight-hour  day  granted  him  and 
was  receiving  the  highest  wages  paid 
engineers  in  that  region,  and  induced 
President  Williams,  of  the  Henry  Clay 
local  to  accompany  him  to  see  Superin- 
tendent Brennan  and  talk  it  over. 

While  at  Mr.  Brennan’s  house,  Presi- 
dent Williams  agreed  that  the  engi- 
neers should  be  allowed  to  work.  On 
the  way  home  with  the  witness.  Presi- 
dent Williams  told  him  that  while  he 
might  work,  as  long  as  he  had  eight 
hours  and  good  pay,  but  he  would  do 
well  to  remember  that  the  firemen  were 
on  strike  for  eight  hours  and  the  steam 
at  the  colliery  was  being  made  by 
non-union  men.  The  witness  wanted  to 
know  if  this  meant  he  couldn't  work. 
President  Williams  told  him  he  must 
not  use  any  "scab”  steam.  The  wit- 
ness, of  course,  could  not  work. 

"You  quit  work  because  the  union 
wanted  you  to  quit,  didn’t  you?  com- 
placently queried  Mr.  Darrow. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


193 


“No,  sir,  I ” the  witness  started  to 

say,  when  Mr.  Darrow,  to  the  accom- 
paniment of  general  laughter  inter- 
rupted with: 

All  right,  I guess  I won’t  go  into 
that,  if  that's  the  case.” 

“Well,  I won’t  press  it,  either,”  said 
Mr.  Wolverton,  good-naturedly  refus- 
ing to  take  advantage  of  Mr.  Darrow's 
slip. 

Irving  Edwards,  of  Shamokin,  watch- 
man at  the  Henry  ‘Clay,  corroborated 
the  story  of  the  attempt  to  wreck  the 
shaft. 

John  Colson,  who  was  an  engineer 
at  the  Gilberton  shaft,  told  of  being 
assaulted  during  the  strike. 

A Showing  of  Wages. 

Mr.  Wolverton,  at  this  juncture  en- 
tered upon  another  branch  of  his  case, 
presentation  of  testimony  showing 
wages  paid  in  occupations  other  than 
mining. 

George  M.  Smith,  of  Mt.  Carmel,  gen- 
eral manager  of  the  Shamokin  & Mt. 
Carmel  Street  railway  testified  that 
trackmen  received  12%  cents  an  hour 
for  ten  hours;  engineers,  $55  a month, 
for  ten  hours;  firemen,  $45  a month  for 
ten  hours,  and  motormen  and  conduc- 
tors, 15  cents  an  hour  for  ten  hours. 

P.  J.  Campion,  of  the  firm  of  Smith  & 
Campion,  general  contractors,  of  Mah- 
anoy  City,  said  he  paid  common  labor- 
ers, $1.45  a day  for  ten  hours.  On 
cross-examination,  Mr.  Darrow  brought 
it  out  that  the  witness  is  interested  in 
a small  coal  mine.  Then  he  got  him 
to  testify  that  powder  used  on  rail- 


road work  cost  him  from  $1  to  $1.75  a 
keg.  He  could  not  be  gotten  to  tell, 
however,  what  it  cost  for  the  powder 
use  1 in  his  mines.  He  explained  that 
he  did  not  actively  interest  himself  in 
the  operations  of  the  mine. 

William  McAdams,  of  Pottsville,  gen- 
eral contractor,  testified  he  paid  labor- 
ers $1.35  for  a day  of  ten  hours.  Some 
few  men  are  paid  $1.50.  In  all  his 
twenty  years  experience  as  a contrac- 
tor in  the  heart  of  the  anthracite  region 
he  never  could  succeed  in  inducing 
mine  workers  to  do  outside  work.  Henry 
Everett  of  Mt.  Carmel,  another  con- 
tractor, testified  he  paid  laborers  $1.50 
for  a day  of  ten  hours.  Jerome  Reed, 
superintendent  of  the  Shamokin  & 
Edgewood  Street  Railway  company  tes- 
tified he  paid  laborers  $8  to  $12  a week 
for  ten  hours  a day  labor.  Daniel 
Heins  and  Joseph  Kessler,  other  con- 
tractors from  Shamokin  gave  similar 
testirr.onv. 

Mr.  Darrow  showed  on  cross-examin- 
ation that  most  of  the  contractors’ 
laborers  were  “floating”  foreigners, 
admitted  they  were  secured  through 
agencies,  and  only  remained  while  a 
job  lasted.  In  a number  of  other  in- 
stances, as  in  the  case  of  the  Mt.  Car- 
mel trolley  road  for  instance,  it  was 
shown  only  a few  men  were  employed 
at  the  different  occupations. 

Tabulation  of  Wages. 

George  Scheuman,  general  manager 
of  the  Reading  Iron  company,  which 
employed  nearly  5,000  men,  presented  a 
tabulation  of  wages  paid  different 


classes  of  workingmen  by  his  company, 
to  show'  that  the  mine  worker’s  com- 
paratively speaking  receive  better 
wages  than  iron  workers  expending 
substantially  similar  energy  and  time. 

Mr.  Darrow  brought  it  out  on  cross- 
examination  that  President  Eaer,  of  the 
Reading  railroad,  was  president  of  this 
company  up  till  a year  ago. 

George  R.  Tracy,  clerk  of  the  road- 
way department  of  the  Philadelphia 
and  Reading  Railroad  company,  gave 
figures  to  show  that  the  laborers  in 
that  department  work  ten  hours  a day 
for  an  average  wage  of  $464.47.  Grant 
F.  Hanley,  another  Philadelphia  and 
Reading  clerk,  gave  figures  showing 
wages  paid  shopmen  and  hours  worked 
by  them. 

Bayard  Halberstadt,  mining  engineer 
and  geologist,  presented  maps  showing 
the  formation  of  the  coal  deposits  of 
the  anthracite  region.  He  also  told  that 
he  worked  in  both  hard  and  soft  coal 
mines,  as  an  engineer,  for  many  years, 
and  w’as  free  to  say  that  the  anthracite 
miners,  as  a w'hole,  w'ere  better  off 
socially  than  the  soft  coal  miners. 

The  last  witness  of  the  day,  and  last 
witness  for  the  operators,  was  E.  C. 
Brown,  superintendent  of  the  Beach 
Creek  Coal  and  Coke  company,  of  Pat- 
ten, Cambria  county. 

He  testified  that  his  company  em- 
ploys 1,700  men  in  sixteen  collieries,  and 
that  the  average  wages  of  miners,  load- 
ers, drivers,  trackmen  and  machine 
helpers  are  substantially  the  same  and 
average  between  $500  and  $600  a year. 
This  is  for  245  days  of  nine  hours  each. 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Peb.  2. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Feb.  3.] 


Philadelphia,  Feb.  2. — The  case  of  the 
operators  closed  at  noon  today  with  the 
presentation  of  a great  mass  of  statis- 
tics bearing  on  wages,  hours  and  gen- 
eral conditions.  The  bulk  of  them  was 
presented  by  the  Philadelphia  and 
Reading  Coal  and  Iron  company, 
through  an  expert  statistician,  H.  T. 
Newcomb. 

The  miners  began  their  case  in  re- 
buttal this  afternoon.  R.  J.  Beamish,  a 
North  American  reporter,  as  their  first 
witness,  told  of  having  spent  the  whole 
strike  period  in  the  coal  regions  on  an 
unsuccessful  hunt  for  anything  savor- 
ing of  outrages,  and  nine  Philadelphia 
“lads,”  who  served  as  coal  and  iron 
police,  w'ent  on  the  stand  to  exhibit 
themselves  as  corroboration  of  the  alle- 
gations the  miners  have  made  against 
them.  They  were  not  wholly  unsuc- 
cessful. 

Tbe  Morning  Session. 

The  morning  session  was  given  over 
entirely  to  the  presentation  of  general 
statistics.  Mr.  Wolverton,  of  the  Phil- 
adelphia and  Reading  company,  occu- 
pied most  of  the  time.  Some  few  docu- 
ments were  offered  by  Mr.  Torrey,  Mr. 
McClintock  and  Major  Warren. 

W.  W.  Ryley,  of  Philadelphia,  who  is 


the  leading  statistician  of  the  anthra- 
cite coal  industry,  was  the  first  wit- 
ness to  be  presented  by  Attorney  Wol- 
verton. He  has  gathered  and  published 
statistics  bearing  on  this  industry  for 
thirteen  years.  The  coal  companies  pay 
the  expenses  of  the  work. 

Maps  and  tables,  showing  output  and 
geographical  distribution  of  prepared 
coal,  the  location  of  coal  beds,  and  col- 
lieries, the  range  of  prices  for  coal  at 
tidewater  for  ten  years  and  so  on  were 
presented  and  explained  in  detail  by 
Mr.  Ryley.  The  material  has  all  been 
published  in  reports.  The  government 
of  the  United  States,  he  said,  uses  his 
statistics  in  its  departmental  reports. 
Commissioner  Parker,  who  is  chief  sta- 
tistician of  the  United  States  Geological 
survey,  is  the  official  to  whom  he  send* 
his  reports. 

Mr.  Darrow  brought  out  the  admis- 
sion that  the  demand  for  smaller  sizes 
has  relatively  increased  in  ten  years, 
with  a corresponding  increase  in  price. 

Commissioner  Clark  was  appealed  to, 
generally,  to  give  testimony  explaining 
an  item  in  the  statistics  to  the  effect 
that  4-100  of  1 per  cent,  of  the  anthra- 
cite coal  product  goes  to  the  Pacific 
coast.  The  witness  could  not  tell  how 


it  went  there  or  what  was  done  with 
it  when  it  got  there.  The  witness 
thought  it  went  by  boat  around  the 
horn  and  was  used  for  domestic  pur- 
poses. When  asked  if  he  knew  any- 
thing about  it,  Commissioner  Clark  said 
there  was  some  anthracite  coal  from 
Pennsylvania  sent  by  rail  across  the 
continent  to  the  Pacific  and  was  used, 
as  he  understood  it,  to  heat  railroad 
cars. 

Washery  production  was  made  the 
subject  of  an  extended  cross-examina- 
tion. Mr.  Darrow  showed  that  up  to 
the  end  of  the  ’80’s  thirty-five  per  cent, 
of  the  coal  taken  out  of  the  mines  went 
to  the  dump.  The  washeries  began 
operation  in  1890  and  in  that  year  11-100 
of  1 per  cent,  of  the  total  production 
was  from  the  washeries.  The  growth 
of  this  output  was  rapid.  In  1894  it  had 
jumped  to  1 55-100  per  cent;  1895,  2 32-100 
per  cent;  1900,  4 75-100  per  cent,  and 
1901,  4 57-100  per  cent.  This  represents 
only  the  amount  shipped  in  cars  to 
market,  taking  no  consideration  of  the 
amount  sold  locally  or  used  for  steam 
about  the  collieries.  The  total  ship- 
ment from  washeries  in  tons  was  2,500.- 
000  in  1901. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


194 


Reading  Statistics. 

A.  C.  Wilson,  of  Pottsville,  general 
land  agent  of  the  Philadelphia  and 
Reading  company,  submitted  a mass  of 
statistics  showing  that  the  company 
pays  the  bulk  of  school  taxes  in  the 
anthracite  counties  in  which  it  ope- 
rates, and  that  the  schools  - of  the  coal 
towns  excell  in  buildings,  equipments, 
length  of  term,  and  pay  of  teachers,  the 
schools  in  the  immediately  adjacent 
agricultural  districts. 

In  telling  of  the  Reading’s  company 
houses,  Mr.  Wilson  testified  that  7 per 
cent,  of  the  25,000  employes  live  in 
them,  and  that  46  of  the  tenants,  who 
are  poor  employes,  are  given  house 
rent  free.  The  average  rental  is  $3.90 
per  month.  The  number  of  employes 
owning  real  estate  is  2,384.  The  com- 
pany never  evicted  a tenant. 

Statistics  were  next  introduced  show- 
ing that  school  teachers  in  the  coal 
towns  and  boroughs  of  Schuylkill  and 
Northumberland  counties  are  paid  33  1-3 
per  cent,  higher  wages  than  those  in 
the  adjoining  agricultural  districts. 

Sonne  interesting  statistics  were  giv- 
en in  regard  to  tax  exonerations.  When 
it  was  shown,  for  instance,  that,  in 
Cass  township,  1,141  of  the  1,170  taxable 
Inhabitants  were  exonerated,  and  in  Mt. 
Carmel  901  out  of  922  exonerated,  Judge 
Gray  was  moved  to  remark  “You  call 
the  tax  collector  a tax  collector,  1 sup- 
pose ?” 

Mr.  Brumm  informed  the  commission- 
ers that  in  these  towns  where  there 
are  so  many  exonerations  the  Reading 
company  owns  practically  the  whole 
town.  The  inhabitants  pay  only  state 
and  county  taxes,  and  often  do  not  pay 
those. 

Mr.  Wolverton  said  he  had  in  mind 
twenty  resident  property  owners  of  Mt. 
Carmel  who  should  pay  taxes  but  who 
are  on  the  exoneration  list.  Yet  in  Mt. 
Carmel  only  twenty-one  parties  outside 
of  the  Reading  company  pay  school 
tax. 

Mr.  , Brumm,  on  cross-examination, 
tried  to  show  that  the  Reading  com- 
pany does  not  pay  as  much  tax  as  it 
ought  to,  as  its  land  is  assessed  by  the 
acre  when  it  should  be  assessed  by  the 
lot,  and  that  when  a piece  of  the  land 
is  sold  it  brings  a price  far  in  excess 
of  the  assessed  valuation. 

Figures  were  also  given  comparing 
the  number  of  hotel  licenses  in  coal 
districts  and  country  districts.  In  one 
coal  settlement  it  was  shown  lhat  there 
is  a liquor  license  for  every  fifty-four 
inhabitants,  to  say  nothing  of  speak- 
easies. 

Boys  Well  Paid. 

John  C.  Michler,  manager  of  the  tele- 
graph office  in  the  Reading  terminal, 
gave  statistics  to  show  that  boys  in 
and  about  the  mines  are  better  paid 
than  boys  of  similar  ages  working  as 
messengers  for  telegraph  companies, 
office  boys,  cash  boys  in  stores,  and 
the  like.  Messenger  boys  earn  $12.60  per 
month  and  pay  out  of  this  earning  $8.80 
twice  a year  for  uniforms,  Boys  in 


large  department  stores  get  58  oen^  a 
day  and  the  older  boys,  whose  ages 
range  from  16  to  20  years,  average 
about  $6  a week. 

Mr.  Harrow  contented  himself  with 
showing  .hat  these  boys  do  not  have 
the  hardships  to  undergo  that  the  mine 
boys  have,  and  that  besides  they  have 
many  opportunities  for  advancing 
themselves. 

H.  T.  Newcomb,  an  expert  statistic- 
ian, who  compiled  the  Reading’s  sta- 
tistical statements,  next  took  the  stand 
and  laid  before  the  commission  a great 
array  of  figures  on  earnings  culled  from 
the  twelfth  census  and  Pennsylvania 
bureau  of  industries.  Generally  speak- 
ing the  figures  tended  to  show  that  the 
mine  worker  is  better  paid  than  any 
other  class  of  employes  doing  anything 
like  similar  labor. 

Two  of  his  summaries  w'ere  of  par- 
ticular interest.  One  showed  the  earn- 
ings of  workmen  employed  in  all  the 
principal  industries  in  the  cities  in  and 
immediately  adjacent  to  the  coal  re- 
gions, exclusive  of  coal  mining.  An- 
other statement  showed  a summary  of 
earnings  in  twenty-five  leading  indus- 
tries of  Pennsylvania. 


Wo- 

Chil- 

Men 

men 

dren 

All 

Over  Over  Under 

Employes.  16. 

16 

16. 

Scranton  

$410 

$514 

$184 

$152 

Wilkes-Barre 

383 

496 

213 

127 

Reading  

394 

449 

253 

133 

Shenandoah  . 

422 

446 

240 

119 

Easton  

388 

472 

211 

179 

Harrisburg  .. 

401 

477 

189 

116 

Allentown  ... 

373 

472 

233 

118 

Total  for  25 

leading  industries  of 

Penn- 

sylvania — 

Number  of  wage  earners 47S.7S0 

Total  wages  paid $221,138,148 

Average  annual  earnings $462 

Average  day  wage',  on  a basis 

of  275  day $1.68 

Average  day  wage  of  all  Phila- 
delphia and  Reading  employes.  $1.92 

Figures  were  also  given  to  show  that 
the  average  number  of  home-owners  in 
the  anthracite  region  exceeded  the  gen- 
eral average  for  the  state  and  that  the 
percentage  of  encumbrances  wras  much 
less  than  the  average. 

Mr.  Wolverton  and  Mr.  McClintock 
both  had  exhaustive  statistics  to  pre- 
sent on  the  matter  of  saloons  in  the 
coal  regions  and  the  cost  of  living  now 
as  compared  wdth  immediately  preced- 
ing vears. 

The  Saloon  Question. 

Anent  the  saloon  question  Judge  Gray 
said  the  commission  had  personally  in- 
vestigated the  matter  and  was  pre- 
pared to  say  there  was  more  than  a 
sufficiency  of  saloons  in  the  anthracite 
coal  region.  The  judge,  himself,  found 
that  in  the  Scranton  region  the  num- 
ber of  saloons  paying  internal  revenue 
were  largely  in  excess  of  those  licensed 
by  the  local  court,  and  he  was  thereby 
led  to  infer  that  there  were  some  speak- 
easies in  addition  to  the  drinking 
places  which  come  under  ordinary 
notice. 

“It  is  the  fault  of  the  people  them- 


selves,” said  the  judge,  "if  there  is 
cause  of  complaint  on  the  score  of  too 
many  saloons,  and  no  finding  this  com- 
mission can  make,  wrill  relieve  you.  I 
am  ready  now  to  announce  an  unof- 
ficial finding  of  this  commission  to  the 
effect  that  there  are  too  many  saloons 
in  the  anthracite  coal  region.” 

Regarding  cost  of  living,  Judge  Gray 
said  the  commission  was  not  anxious 
for  any  figures  from  the  contending 
parties,  as  an  expert  engaged  by  the 
commission  has  been  at  work  for  three 
months  obtaining  data  on  this  matter. 

Attorney  Tcrrey  presented  statistics 
secured  from  the  Prudential  Life  In- 
surance company  showing  that  miners 
are  not  included  in  the  twenty-one 
classes  of  workmen  who  are  compelled 
to  pay  extra  premiums  on  policies  of 
less  than  $500.  On  policies  of  over 
$500  the  extra  premium  paid  by  miners 
is  $2.50. 

Mr.  Torrey  also  presented  the  min- 
utes of  the  joint  convention  of  Districts 
1,  7 and  9 of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
held  in  Hazleton,  March  11-16,  1901.  He 
called  particular  notice  to  two  resolu- 
tions adopted  at  this  convention,  one 
petitioning  the  governor  and  board  of 
pardons  to  pardon  eight  violators,  and 
another  stipulating  that  any  man  fall- 
ing to  produce  a union  working  card  to 
the  inspection  committee,  should  be 
asked  “to  join  the  union  or  give  up  his 
work.” 

Mr.  Torrey  was  asked  by  Mr.  Darrow 
to  explain  in  what  way  the  pardon 
resolution  was  germane  to  work  of  the 
commission. 

Discipline  After  Conviction. 

Mr.  Torrey  said  that  President  Mitch- 
ell and  other  witnesses  for  the  miners 
had  declared  the  reason  they  did  not 
discipline  their  members  for  lawless- 
ness was  because  it  would  prejudice 
their  cases  when  they  came  to  trial. 
From  this,  it  was  to  be  inferred,  Mr. 
Torrey  went  on  to  say,  that  the  union 
disciplines  them  after  they  are  con- 
victed. This  resolution,  he  added,  would 
tend  to  contradict  that  inference. 

“Well.  Mr.  Torrey,”  said  Mr.  Darrow, 
"our  fellows  are  willing  to  shoulder  all 
responsibilities  for  asking  for  clemency 
for  a fellow  human  being — yes,  even 
though  he  were  a coal  operator.” 

President  Baer,  of  the  Reading,  was 
heard  from  individually  at  this  morn- 
ing’s session.  In  the  earlier  days  of 
the  hearing  President  Mitchell  declared, 
and  it  had  been  reiterated,  that  Presi- 
dent Baer  and  Mr.  Markle  told  Presi- 
dent Roosevelt  that  twenty-one  mur- 
ders had  been  committed  in  the  coal 
regions  during  the  strike  by  the  union 
men.  Several  times  representatives  of 
the  miners  challenged  the  other  side 
to  bring  in  Mr.  Baer  and  Mr.  Markle 
and  have  them  prove  this  assertion. 

This  morning,  as  the  operators’  side 
was  about  to  close.  Attorney  Wolver- 
ton announced  that  in  justice  to  Mr. 
Baer  he  would  like  to  have  this  matter 
corrected.  Mr.  Baer,  Mr.  Wolverton 
declared,  never  used  the  language  at- 


tributed  to  him.  To  corroborate  this, 
Mr.  Wolverton  called  attention  to  the 
stenographic  report  of  the  meeting'  at 
the  white  house,  which  is  printed  in 
the  pamphlet  furnished  the  commis- 
sioners on  Friday. 

Judge  Gray  read  what  Mr.  Baer  and 
Mr.  Markle  said  on  this  subject.  Mr. 
Baer’s  words  were:  “He  (Mitchell) 

must  stop  his  people  from  killing  and 
maiming  Pennsylvania  citizens'.”  Mr. 
Markle  said:  “A  record  of  twenty-one 

murders,  etc.,  etc.,  shows  this  condition 
of  lawlessness  existing  there.” 

Mr.  Darrow  said  he  would  not  mis- 
quote either  gentleman.  He  would  use 
their  exact  language  where  he  had  oc- 
casion to  deal  with  the  matter. 

At  12.40  the  operators  rested  their 
case  and  a recess  was  taken  until  2 
o’clock,  when  the  miners  began  the 
presentation  of  their  rebuttal  testi- 
mony. 

Mr.  McClintock’s  Statistics. 

The  statistics  presented  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Clintock  were  as  follows: 

Table  of  comparative  bank  statistics  of 
the  anthracite,  bituminous  and  agricul- 
tural sections  of 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

Anthracite,  four  counties  — Luzerne, 
Lackawanna,  Schuylkill,  Northumberland 
population,  714,790;  National  bank  de- 
posits, $31,205,220 .12;  National  bank  per 
capita,  $43.65;  savings  banks  deposits,  $27,- 
056.115.07;  savings  banks  per  capita,  $37. S5: 
total  bank  deposits,  $58,261,335.19;  total 
bank  per  capita,  $81.50. 

Bituminous,  eight  counties — Cambria, 
Clearfield,  Elk,  Fayette,  Jefferson,  Som- 
erset, Y/ashington,  Westmoreland,  pop- 
ulation, 689,696;  National  bank  deposits, 


MINE  STRIKE  ■ COMMISSION 


$32,400,693.12;  National  bank  per  capita, 
$46.98;  savings  banks  deposits,  $9,419,918.42; 
savings  banks  per  capita,  $13.66;  total  bank 
deoosits,  $41,820,611.54;  total  bank  per  cap- 
ita, $60.64. 

Agricultural,  seven  counties— Lancaster, 
Montgomery,  Lehigh,  X<Iorthampton, 
Bucks,  Crawford,  Delaware,  population, 
721,411;  National  bank  deposits,  $35,204,- 
755.26;  National  bank  per  capita,  $48.79; 
savings  banks  deposits,  $20,581,486.04;  sav- 
ings banks  per  capita,  $28.53;  total  bank 
deposits.  $55,789,241.30;  total  bank  per  cap- 
ita, $77.32. 

The  above  data  is  obtained  from  the 
report  of  the  comptroller  of  currency, 
United  States,  1901,  volume  II,  pages  1015 
to  1135,  inclusive,  national  banks,  and 
from  the  commissioner  of  banking,  Penn- 
sylvania, part  1,  pages  3 to  803,  inclusive, 
as  to  savings  banks. 

The  Statistics. 

Table  of  comparative  tax  statistics  of  the 
anthracite,  bituminous  and  agricultural 
section  of  Pennsylvania.  From  the  re- 
port of  the  secretary  of  internal  affairs, 
Pennsylvania,  i901,  parts  I and  II. 
Anthracite,  four  counties,  Luzerne, 
Lackawanna,  Schuylkill,  Northumber- 
land—Population,  714,790;  number  of  tax- 
ables,  223,685;  value  of  property  taxable, 
$215,589,152;  value  per  capita  of  population, 
$301.61;  (assessed  valuation  as  adjusted  by 
the  commissioners).  Amount  of  money  at 
interest,  including  bonds,  judgment  notes, 
etc.,  $26,070,203;  same  per  capita  of  popu- 
lation, $36.47;  aggregate  amount  of  state 
tax  assessed,  $104,433.57;  same  per  capita 
of  population,  $1.63;  tax  collected  on  per- 
cense,  including  liquor  licenses,  $761,803.63; 
same  per  capita  of  population,  $1.20;  tax 
on  real  estate  of  railroad  corporations, 
$171,273.65;  same  per  capita  of  population, 
$.2396;  tax  collected  on  real  estate  of  other 
corporations,  $997,521.01;  same  per  capita 
of  population,  $1.63;  tax  collected  on  per- 


195 

sonal  property,  $131,204.16;  same  per  capita 
of  population,  $.18. 

Bituminous,  eight  counties,  Cambria, 
Clearfield,  Elk,  Fayette,  Jefferson,  Som- 
erset, Washington,  Westmoreland— Popu- 
lation, 689,696;  number  of  taxables,  $199,- 
670;  value  of  property  taxable,  $244,583,136; 
value  per  capita  of  population,  $354.62; 
(assessed  valuation  as  adjusted  by  the 
commissioners).  Amount  of  money  at  in- 
terest. including  bonds,  judgments,  notes, 
etc.,  $27,330,409;  same  per  capita  of  popu- 
lation, $39.62;  aggregate  amount  of  state 
tax  assessed,  $109,847.19;  same  per  capita 
of  population,  $.1593;  tax  collected  on  li- 
cense, including  liquor  licenses,  $225,290.09; 
same  per  capita  of  pomilation.  $.32;  tax 
collected  on  real  estate  of  railroad  corpor- 
ations, $8,286.91;  same  per  capita  of  pop- 
ulation, $.012;  tax  collected  on  real  estate 
of  pther  corporations,  $595,925.57;  same  per 
capita  of  population,  $.86;  tax  collected  on 
personal  property,  $142,029.48;  same  per 
capita  of  population,  $.21. 

Agricultural,  seven  counties,  Lancaster, 
Montgomery,  Lehigh,  Northampton, 
Bucks,  Crawford,  Delaware— Population, 
721,411;  number  of  taxables,  239,576;  value 
of  property  taxable,  $386,016,208;  value  per 
capita  of  population,  $511.20,  (assessed 
valuation  as  adjusted  by  the  commission- 
ers). Amount  of  money  at  interest,  in- 
cluding bonds,  judgments,  notes,  etc.,  84,- 
211,433;  same  per  capita  of  population, 
$116.73;  aggregate  amount  of  state  tax  as- 
sessed$337,120.01;  same  per  capita  of  popu- 
lation, $.4673;  tax  collected  on  license,  in- 
cluding liquor  licenses,  $421,392.09;  same 
per  capita  of  population,  $.58;  tax  col- 
lected on  real  estate  of  railroad  corpora- 
tions, $11,006.68;  same  per  capita  of  pop- 
ulation, $.0152;  tax  collected  on  real  estate 
of  other  corporations,  $130,463.15;  same  per 
capita  of  population,  $.21;  tax  collected  on 
personal  property,  $360,554.25;  same  per 
capita  of  population.  $.50. 

Miners’  Rebuttal. 

The  miners  began  their  case  in  re- 
buttal by  calling  Richard  J.  Beamish, 
who  was  correspondent  for  the  North 
American  in  different  parts  of  the  an- 
thracite region  during  the  strike.  He 
was  first  induced  by  Mr.  Darrow  to 
make  the  admission  that  his  father 
was  at  one  time  a coal  operator,  and 
that  he  himself  was  an  ex-lawryer. 

Without  much  leading  from  Attorney 
Darrow,  the  witness  told  of  his  exper- 
iences in  Hazleton,  Shenandoah  and  the 
Panther  Creek  valley.  He  minimized 
the  incidents  of  violence  which  he  had 
investigated,  and  told  of  personally 
having  witnessed  officers  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  prevent  violence  and 
disperse  mobs.  The  quiet  and  peaceful 
conditions  of  the  middle  district,  the 
witness  said,  was  due,  in  his  opinion, 
to  the  activity  of  the  union  officers. 
There  was  no  reign  of  terror,  he  said, 
as  far  as  he  could  see. 

In  regard  to  General  Gobin’s  declara- 
tion that  Mr.  Beamish  had  told  Colo- 
nel Clement  to  be  careful  what  he  said, 
as  he  (Beamish)  had  been  s ent  to 
Shenandoah  “to  put  the  soldiers  in  a 
hole,”  Mr.  Beamish  said  he  never  made 
such  a statement  to  Colonel  Clement  or 
anybody  else.  The  most  he  said  to 
Colonel  Clement  was  that  he  should 
remember  in  his  answer  to  his  (Beam- 


Comparative  school  statistics  of  the  anthracite,  bituminous  and  agricultural  sec- 
tions of  Pennsylvania.  Data  taken  from  the  reports  of  the  United  States  com- 
missioner of  education  for  1901,  and  from  the  state  superintendent  of  schools  of 
Pennsylvania  for  1901,  and  from  the  report  of  the  superintendent  of  schools  of 
Wilkes-Barre.  . 

Population  714,790  689,696  721,411 

Number  of  children,  6 to  16  years  155,808  142,918  135,425 

Value  of  school  property  $6,074,365  39  $4,807,250  00  $7,147,414  08 

Average  monthly  salary,  male  teachers $51  74  $46  55  $50  52 

Average  monthly  salary,  female  teachers $36  06  $35  92  $38  43 

Average  annual  salary,  male  teachers $454  93  $351  21  $435  25 

Average  annual  salary,  female  teachers $315  82  $269  98  $329  13 

Number  of  scholars,  male  71,260  73,784  68,512 

Number  of  scholars,  female 71,820  74,267  66,913 

Average  number  of  months  taught  8.76  7.51  8.5 

Per  cent,  attendance  of  enrollment 68.96 

Per  cent,  total  population  enrolled  20.02 

Per  cent,  attendance  to  population 13.81 

Average  days  attended  each  pupil  enrolled 120. S 

Parochial  scholars 13,618 

Per  cent,  attendance  parochial  schools  to  popula- 
tion   1.91 

Per  cent,  attendance,  parochial  and  public  schools 

to  population  21.93 

Average  No.  days  public  schools  open  annually.  175.2 

Average  No.  days  attended  by  each  pupil  enrolled 

in  public  schools  in  United  States SS.8 

Average  No.  days  attended  by  each  pupil  enrolled 

in  public  schools  of  Pennsylvania 120. S 

Average  No.  days  attended  by  each  pupilenrolled 

in  compared  lists  120.8 

In  1901  .701  of  1 per  cent,  of  the  total  population  of  the  United  States  were  in  the 
high  schools.  In  Wilkes-Barre  in  that  year,  1.5  per  cent,  were  in  the  high  school. 

In  1901  3.48  per  cent,  of  all  school  children  enrolled  in  the  United  States  were  in 
high  schools.  In  Wilkes-Barre  9.5  per  cent  were  in  the  high  school. 

5.5  per  cent  of  all  children  of  mine  workers  enrolled  in  Wilkes-Barre  are  in  high 
school,  or  about  one  in  eighteen,  but  in  the  United  States  only  about  one  in  twenty- 
nine  are  In  high  school. 


7.51 

70.13 

21.57 

15.05 

106.1 

8,569 

1.24 

22.41 

153.3 


106.1 


73.74 

18.88 

13.83 

124.8 

6,37 

.83 

19.59 

170.1 


124.8 


196  . 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


ish’s)  questions,  that  he  would  be 
quoted. 

The  witness  said  he  did  not  allege 
that  General  Gobin’s  “shoot  to  kill" 
order  was  intended  to  apply  to  women 
and  children.  What  he  did  say  was 
that  the  general  declared  the  provision 
regarding  the  arrest  of  stone  throwers 
should  apply  to  women  and  children. 

On  cross-examination  by  John  T. 
Lenahan,  Mr.  Beamish  denied  that  the 
North  American  was  hostile  to  General 
Gobin  and  that  the  paper  minimized 
every  wrong  done  by  the  strikers.  The 
only  real  outrage  he  had  encountered 
in  his  travels  was  a case  of  dynamit- 
ing in  West  Hazleton.  Mr.  Lenahan 
asked  if  he  had  heard  of  this,  that  or 
the  other  incident  of  violence  in  and 
about  the  Lehigh  region,  which  the 
non-union  men  had  testified  to.  Mr. 
Beamish  had  as  an  unvarying  answer: 
“I  was  not  there  at  the  time  that  is 
alleged  to  have  taken  place.” 

“I  thought  you  said  you  were  sent  up 
there  to  find  out  what  was  going  on?” 
remarked  Mr.  Lenahan. 

Mr.  Beamish  laughea  as  keenly  as 
the  other  auditors. 

Mr.  Darrow  thought  to  show  by  Mr. 
Beamish  that  he  knew  personally  of 
“recruits  of  the  slums”  of  Philadelphia 
being  engaged  to  do  work  as  coal  and 
iron  police.  Mr.  Beamish  could  only 
say  he  had  encountered  half-a-dozen 
or  so  of  Philadelphians  acting  as  coal 
and  iron  police  in  the  Hazleton  re- 
gion. , j ,! 

A Serious  Charge. 

Major  Warren  had  misunderstood 
Mr.  Beamish  to  assent  to  Mr.  Darrow’s 
allegation  that  these  men  were  from 
the  “slums,”  and  was  proceeding  to 
cross-examine  Mr.  Beamish,  as  to  the 
extent  of  his  knowledge  in  this  re- 
gard, when  Judge  Gray  set  him  right 
with  the  remark:  “The  worst  charge 

Mr.  Beamish  makes  against  these  men 
is  that  they  were  from  Philadelphia.” 
“Oh,  all  right,”  said  the  major.  “Then 
we  are  to  understand  they  were  emi- 
nently respectable,  except  in  that  tiiey 
were  from  Philadlphia.” 

Attorney  McCarthy  next  began  the 
presentation  of  “exhibits”  of  imported 


coal  and  iron  police,  recruited  by  de- 
tective agencies  in  Philadelphia.  Nine 
of  them  were  put  on  the  stand,  asked  a 
few  questions  and  allowed  to  go.  Their 
appearance,  on  the  whole,  indicated 
that  they  were  not  quite  as  bad  a lot 
as  the  miners  representatives  had 
painted  them.  A person  of  only  ordin- 
ary precaution  would  trust  any  one  of 
them  if  he  had  him  covered  with  a six- 
shooter. 

They  told  that  they  went  up  into  the 
coal  region  at  the  solicitation  of  repre- 
sentatives of  detective  agencies  to  as- 
sist in  the  laudable  enterprise  of  help- 
ing to  preserve  the  peace  and  earn 
$2.50  a day  and  free  board  and  lodging. 
Only  one  of  the  nine  was  asked  for  a 
recommendation.  He  was  a China- 
packer  for  Lit  Bros,  and  got  a ’’char- 
acter’ from  his  employers. 

As  a rule  they  were  sworn  in  as 
coal  and  iron  police,  furnished  with  a 
rifle  and  put  on  duty  ■ guarding  col- 
liery property.  Some  of  them  were 
sworn  in  as  deputies.  One  of  them  told 
that  he  was  in  a squad  of  twenty- 
eight  sent  up  from  Philadelphia;  that 
there  were  men  from  Chicago,  New 
York  and  even  Camden  in  the  party, 
and  that  these  men  were  made  deputies 
by  the  sheriffs  of  Luzerne  and  Schuyl- 
kill counties. 

Mr.  McCarthy  was  starting  in  to  get 
admission  from  his  witnesses  that  they 
had  “done  time,’  but  Judge  Gray  would 
not  stand  for  this.  “You  can  not  dis- 
credit your  own  witness,”  the  judge 
declared. 

One  of  the  witnesses  said  his  occu- 
pation was  "canvassing  from  house  to 
house.”  He  did  not  volunteer  the  in- 
formation as  to  whether  it  was  first 
or  second  story  canvassing  and  Mr. 
McCarthy  ventured  to  ask  him  if  he 
had  ever  been  locked  up.  Judge  Gray 
either  did  not  or  pretended  not  to  hear 
the  question  and  the  witness  was  al- 
lowed t.o  answer. 

“Oh,  maybe  I’se  been  locked  up  a few 
times  just  like  any  o’  youse  ud  be” — 
indicating  the  lawyers  and  commis- 
sioners with  a sweep  of  his  hand — “but 
it  wasn’t  never  for  no  deputations — 
just  for  havin’  a little  fun.” 

Even  Bishop  Spalding  did  not  resent 


this  imputation  of  the  frailty  of  all 
human  nature. 

Mr.  McCarthy  took  especial  pains  to 
bring  out  from  each  of  his  witnesses 
that  they  were  never  molested  and 
saw  no  violence  around  the  collieries 
they  were  protecting.  Mr.  Lenahan 
contented  himself  on  cross-examination 
with  emphasizing  the  fact  that  they 
were  not  molested  because  they  were 
always  in  force  and  heavily  armed. 

At  the  outset  of  the  examination  of 
Mr.  McCarthy’s  gents  from  Philadel- 
phia, Mr.  Torrey  objected  to  them  giv- 
ing any  testimony  bearing  on  lawless- 
ness as  it*  was  not  rebuttal. 

No  Lawlessness. 

Mr.  McCarthy  insisted  it  was  re- 
levant, saying  to  Judge  Gray  “Why 
your  Honor,  1 want  to  rebut  this  pre- 
sumption that  there  was  lawlessness 
and  a region  of  terror  in  the  coal  re- 
gions.” 

“WTell  go  ahead  and  do  it  if  you  can,” 
remarked  the  judge  with  a smile. 

The  last  witness  of  the  day  was 
’Squire  Daniel  J.  McKelvy,  of  Hazle 
township.  He  went  on  the  stand  to 
vindicate  himself.  At  the  Scranton 
hearings,  August  Scheuch,  a mine  fore- 
man, who  was  assaulted  and  stabbed 
by  a crowd  of  strikers,  testified  that 
’Squire  McKelvy  was  one  of  the  mob 
and  that  he  incited  the  assault  by  say- 
ing as  Scheuch  approached:  “Here 

comes  the  old ; give  it  to 

him.” 

The  ’Squire  Was  for  Law. 

’Squire  McKelvy,  of  course,  denied 
this  and  to  show  that  he  was  for  law 
and  order  during  the  strike,  read  a let- 
ter from  the  Lehigh  company  compli- 
menting him  on  his  work  in  preventing 
an  attack  on  a trolley  car,  supposed  to 
contain  non-unionists.  The  'squire  ap- 
parently satisfied  the  commission  that 
old  man  Scheuch  was  mistaken  as  to 
his  identity.  The  ’squire  admitted  he 
was  present  at  the  row,  but  averred 
that  his  only  participation  was  to  at- 
tempt to  prevent  the  assault  and  re=cu? 
Scheuch’s  son,  who  was  threatened 
with  the  same  treatment  his  father  had 
received. 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Feb.  3. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Feb.  4.] 


Philadelphia,  Feb.  3. — Today's  session 
of  the  mine  strike  commission  was  de- 
voted mainly  to  the  hearing  of  testi- 
mony from  the  miners’  side  rebutting 
the  allegation  of  the  operators  that  re- 
strictions by  the  union  were  responsible 
for  the  coal  famine.  Delaware  & Hud- 
son and  Delaware,  Lackawanna  & 
Western  miners’  went  on  the  stand  and 
stated  that  they  have  been  unabP — 
especially  since  the  close  of  the  strike 
to  get  a full  shift  of  cars,  and  furthc 
that  the  miners  have  been  idle  on  var- 
ic.-.'  ocasjnn.  ;;;r.ce  th.  strike,  by  reason 


of  the  shortage  of  railroad  cars  and 
the  usual  breakdowns  of  machinery. 

Each  witness  also  was  gotten  by  the 
miners’  lawyers  to  declare  that  he, 
and  his  fellow  workmen  were  anxious 
for  a change  from  the  per-car  to  per- 
weight  system  of  payment.  The  rea- 
sons they  had  for  favoring  the  change 
were  not  given  in  a very  lucid  manner, 
but  all  were  satisfied  in  a general  way, 
that  payment  by  weight  was  more  fair 
and  satisfactory  and  less  liable  to  en- 
gender disputes  than  the  per-car  sys- 
tem. 


Morning  Session. 

’Squire  Daniel  J.  McKelvy,  of  Hazle 
township,  who  was  on  the  stand  at  ad- 
journing time  last  night,  vindicating 
himself,  was  re-called  at  the  opening  of 
this  morning’s  session  for  cross-exami- 
nation by  Attorney  John  T.  Lenahan. 
The  ’squire,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 
arrested  for  participating  in  an  assault 
on  August  Scheuch  and  his  son,  Will- 
iam, who  were  badly  used  up  by  a mob 
of  sixty  or  seventy,  while  on  their  way 
to  work.  The  older  Scheuch  alleged 
that  ’Squire  McKelvy  led  the  attack  on 


him,  saying-,  “Here  comes  the  old — ; 

give  it  to  him.” 

On  direct  examination,  yesterday, 
the  ’squire  did  much  to  give  the  com- 
mission the  impression  that  he  was  the 
victim  of  mistaken  identity.  After  John 
T.  Lenahan  finished  with  him  this 
morning,  it  is  questionable  if  the  com- 
missioners’ good  impression  of  the 
’squire  was  not  a bit  shattered. 

The  ’squire  admitted  he  was  very  ac- 
tive during  the  strike,  but  insisted  his 
activity  was  solely  in  the  direction  of 
conserving  the  peace  in  Hazle  township. 
Mr.  Lenahan  had  a typewritten  list  of 
some  of  the  ’squire’s  alleged  activities, 
and  examined  him  in  detail  as  to  the 
accuracy  of  the  list. 

The  ’squire  denied  he  had  done  any  of 
the  things  alleged  on  the  list.  He  ad- 
mitted, however,  that  he  made  speeches 
in  English,  Slavish  and  Italian  for  the 
strikers  during  the  strike,  and  that  he 
once  weht  to  Scheuch’s  house  and  tried 
to  persuade  young  Scheuch  to  refrain 
from  working. 

Judge  Gray  put  the  ’squire  on  the 
rack  for  half  an  hour,  plying  him  w'ith 
questions  which  tended  to  show  that 
the  chairman  did  not  quite  see  how  the 
’squire’s  story  of  the  Scheuch  assault 
dovetailed.  Finally,  in  desperation  the 
judge  tilted  back  in  his  chair  and  said: 
“I  give  it  up.” 

Attorney  Lenahan  let  the  ’sauire  go 
after  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that 
he  did  nothing  in  the  way  of  issuing 
warrants  for  those  who  committed  the 
Scheuch  outrage. 

E.  J.  Curry,  who  conducts  a credit 
store  at  Freeland,  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  G.  B.  Markle  & Co.’s  store 
at  Jeddo,  testified  that  he  had  compared 
the  prices  on  the  passbooks  of  his  own 
and  Markle  customers  and  found  his 
own  prices  were  12%  per  cent,  lower 
than  those  of  the  company  store.  He 
also  told  that,  he  knew  of  an  incident 
of  a Markle  & Co.  employe  being  co- 
erced into  trading  in  the  company  store. 
• 

Saw  Real  Violence  Once. 

William  L.  McLoughlin,  of  Shenan- 
doah, correspondent  for  a number  of 
press  associations  and  metropolitan 
newspapers,  gave  his  town  practically 
a clean  bill  as  to  peace  and  order  dur- 
ing the  strike.  The  only  real  violence, 
he  said,  was  the  riot  of  July  30,  in  which 
Beddell  was  killed.  He  never  heard  the 
citizens  say  anything  unkind  of  the  sol- 
diers, except  on  one  occasion,  -when 
some  persons  cried  “shame,”  as  a troop 
of  cavalry  marched  along  the  street, 
escorting  three  aged  men  in  shackles, 
who  were  arrested  for  picking  coal 
from  a dump.  Colonel  Clement,  of  the 
Twelfth  regiment,  told  the  witness  he 
and  his  soldiers  wrere  well  treated  by 
the  people  of  the  town. 

Soldiers  were  frequently  arrested,  the 
witness  averred,  for  disorderly  conduct 
in  Shenandoah.  On  one  day  the  civil 
authorities  arrested  five  and  the  pro- 
vost guard,  about  eighty. 

On  cross-examination  by  Attorney  Jo- 
seph O’Brien,  the  witness  was  led  to 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

tell  the  story  of  the  riot  in  which  Bed- 
dell was  killed,  and  which  he  witnessed 
from  close  range.  He  said  there  were 
about  200  persons  in  the  mob  immedi- 
ately surrounding  Beddell  at  the  time 
he  was  clubbed  to  death,  and  that  on 
the  sidewalks  there  were  fully  2,000 
more. 

Only  three  men,  the  witness  said, 
made  any  attempt  at  rescuing  Beddell, 
as  far  as  he  could  see. 

“Then  there  were  three  men  in  that 
great  crowd?”  said  the  judge,  with  em- 
phasis on  “were.”  “Let  us  have  their 
names,  if  you  know  them.  They  ought 
to  be  published.  Don’t  you  think  so?” 
added  the  judge,  turning  to  his  col- 
leagues. The  colleagues  assented,  and 
Judge  Gray,  addressing  himself  to  the 
press  table,  said:  “I  hope  the  press 

will  take  note  of  these  names  and  print 
them  on  their  roll  of  honor.” 

The  Roll  of  Honor. 

The  witness  then  gave  the  names  of 
Edward  McGinnis  and  Michael  Durkin. 
The  name  of  the  third  man  he  could  not 
remember,  but  knew  he  was  a Polander. 
Durkin  is  a miner.  The  other  two  are 
teamsters. 

At  this  juncture,  the  miners  began 
the  introduction  of  testimony  calculated 
to  show  that  it  is  the  employer  and  not 
the  employes  w'ho  wras  responsible  for 
the  coal  famine. 

“All  witnesses  coming  from  or  I 
should  say  going  for  the  Delaware  & 
Hudson  company  will  please  come  for- 
ward,” called  out  the  facetious  Mr. 
Darrow. 

The  first  of  them  to  be  sworn  was 
William  Ruthledge,  a miner  from  the 
Pine  Ridge  colliery,  at  Miners’  Mills. 

The  regular  shift  at  this  mine,  he 
said  is  six  cars  a day.  He  works  seven 
hours  and  his  laborer  nine.  Since  the 
strike,  he  averred,  he  has  not  averaged 
more  than  four  and  one-half  cars  a 
day.  He  was  always  anxious  to  get  in 
a full  shift  but  could  not  get  the  cars 
to  load.  He  frequently  asked  for  more 
cars,  but  could  not  get  them.  Since 
the  close  of  the  strike  the  colliery  has 
been  idle  six  days  because  of  the  in- 
ability to  get  railroad  cars.  He  never 
refused  to  load  all  the  cars  he  could  get 
and  knew  of  no  miner  who  refused  to 
load  the  full  shift. 

On  cross-examination,  Mr.  Torrey 
secured  an  admission  that  the  miners 
refused  to  work  on  Mitchell  Day, 
Thanksgiving  Day  and  New  Year’s 
Day,  and  that  on  the  day  following 
Christmas  the  breaker  had  to  shut 
down  at  noon  because  of  a scarcity  of 
coal.  Mr.  Torrey  also  secured  an  ad- 
mission that  the  Pine  Ridge  local  of 
the  miners’  union  passed  a resolution 
forbidding  its  members  from  taking 
contracts  tor  heading  work. 

John  Durkin,  a miner  from  the  Laurel 
Run  colliery,  at  Parsons,  also  testified 
that  he  could  not  get  all  the  cars  he 
was  desirous  of  loading  since  the  close 
of  the  strike.  He  asked  the  foreman 
and  the  driver  boss  to  give  him  the 
full  shift  of  cars  but  without  avail. 


197 

The  mine  was  idle  several  days,  he 
said,  on  account  of  the  want  of  rail- 
road cars. 

Mr.  Torrey  got  the  witness  to  say 
that  the  only  time  the  mine  was  want- 
ing railroad  cars  was  in  November 
when  there  was  a heavy  snow  storm, 
which  caused  delay  in  distribution  of 
railroad  cars. 

Henry  Carver,  of  Plymouth,  a miner 
at  the  Boston  colliery  was  put  on  the 
stand  to  dispute  the  company’s  wage 
statistics.  It  was  represented  by  the 
statistics  filed  with  the  commission 
that  he  was  paid  $2,877  in  1901.  Mr. 
Darrow'  proposed  to  show  that  this 
money  was  divided  among  six  or  eight 
men. 

Mr.  Torrey  Objects. 

Mr.  Torrey  objected  to  this  testimony 
as  not  being  rebuttal.  Said  he:  “The 

Delaware  & Hudson  company  frankly 
admitted  that  in  some  few  cases,  where 
it  w’as  represented  by  the  statistics  that 
the  earnings  were  those  of  a miner  and 
laborer,  the  earnings  might  be  for  a 
miner  and  several  laborers.  It  was 
also  pointed  out  that  in  hundreds  of 
instances  there  were  earnings  put  down 
for  a miner  and  laborer,  when  it  was 
a certainty  that  no  laborer  had  been 
employed:  that  the  cutting  and  loading 
had  both  been  done  by  the  miner.  The 
books  of  the  company  were  thrown 
open  to  the  expert  accountant  of  the 
miners  with  the  request  that  they  cor- 
rect any  inaccuracies  of  this  kind.  They 
should  have  done  this  instead  of  com- 
ing in  on  rebuttal  to  discredit  our 
figures  in  a few  instances  and  thereby 
possibly  give  grounds  for  the  erroneo  s 
inference  that  all  the  figures  were  dis- 
creditable.” 

Mr.  Darrow  half  agreed  that  Mr. 
Torrey’s  position  was  well-grounded 
and  said  he  wmuld  possibly  not  question 
the  figures  in  this  way.  Judge  Gray 
suggested  that  the  witness  be  heard. 
The  commission  would  not  be  led  into 
wrong  inferences,  he  intimated. 

Earned  About  $70  a Month. 

The  witness  then  went  on  to  tell  that 
the  $2,877  was  earned  on  a gangway 
contract.  He  employed  from  six  to 
eight  men  on  the  job.  The  miners 
were  paid  $2.50  a day  and  the  laborers, 
$2.20.  He  could  not  remember  just 
what  share  of  the  $2,877  fell  to  him  but 
he  thought  it  was  about  $70  a month. 

Commissioner  Parker,  who  had  been 
doing  some  figuring,  asked  the  witness 
how  many  days  he  worked  on  the  con- 
tract. The  witness  did  not  know'  but 
was  quite  sure  it  was-  upw'ards  of  200 
days.  Commisioner  Parker  pointed  out 
that  six  men  averaging  $2.35  a day  for 
200  days  would  earn  more  than  $2,877. 
and  wanted  to  know  where  the  contrac- 
tor got  $70  a month.  The  witness 
couldn’t  help  him  out. 

Mr.  Torrey  assisted  in  clearing  up  the 
mystery  by  having  the  witness  admit 
that  in  obedience  to  the  decree  of  the 
Hazleton  convention,  he  was  limited 
to  two  laborers  during  the  latter  part 
of  his  contract  period.  The  witness 


200 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


not  good  reasoning'.  The  companies  are 
not  .desirous  of  having  the  existing 
surplusage  of  men.  They  are  there, 
however,  and  the  work  is  divided 
among  them.  It  would  be  a good 
thing  all  around,  Mr.  Wolverton  de- 
clared, if  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the 
mine  workers  in  the  anthracite  region 
could  be  induced  to  emigrate  to  some 
other  locality.  Then,  Mr.  Wolverton 
contended,  the  remaining  75  per  cent, 
could  be  assured  of  steady  employ- 
ment. 

Judge  Gray  could  not  understand 
why  there  should  be  a surplus  of  men 
in  the  anthracite  region.  “It  surely 
isn’t  the  scenery  that  keeps  them 
there,”  said  the  judge. 

Mr.  Wolverton’s  explanation  was  that 
the  men  found  the  work  the  most  de- 
sirable they  can  possibly  get,  and  al- 
though they  all  understand  there  are 
too  many  men  for  the  places  avail- 
able they  insist  on  “hanging  around” 
hoping  to  get  the  best  places.  He  also 
pointed  out  that  many  of  these  men 
“hanging  around”  are  men  who  have 
worked  in  the  bituminous  regions. 

Incident  of  Local  Interest. 

An  incident  peculiarly  of  local  inter- 
est transpired  at  the  close  of  the  morn- 
ing session.  Evan  Thomas,  a typical 
Welshman,  was  one  of  a number  of 
miners  from  the  Woodward  colliery  of 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern company,  at  Kingston,  who  were 
put  on  the  stand  to  explain  that  the 
big  wages  with  which  the  statistics 
credited  him  were  earned  at  “narrow” 
work,  and  divided  with  more  than  one 
laborer. 

When  he  had  concluded  his  testi- 
mony, Judge  Gray  asked  in  his  most 
pleasant  tones  if  the  witness  was  not  a 
Welshman. 

“Oh,  yes,”  replied  Mr.  Thomas,  with 
seeming  surprise  that  anyone  should 
have  to  inquire  as  to  his  nationality. 

“How  long  have  you  been  in  the  coun- 
try?” queried  the  judge. 

“I  have  been  in  this  country  twenty- 
one  years,”  the  witness  replied. 

The  judge  then  went  on  to  engage 
the  witness  in  a conversation  about 
Welshmen,  when  the  witness  shrugged 
his  shoulders  and  intimated  that  he 
could  not  quite  follow  the  judge’s  ques- 
tions. 

“I’m  a wee  bit  nervous  yere,”  said 
Mr.  Thomas,  “but  if  you  will  talk  to  me 
in  Welsh,  h’ill  talk  to  you  all  you 
want.” 

“You  talk  Welsh  in  this  country, 
too?”  remarked  Judge  Gray. 

“ ’Deed  yes,”  said  the  witness.  “I’ll 
teach  you  Welsh  hif  you’ll  teach  me 
hinglish.” 

“If  I could  talk  Welsh  as  well  as  you 
talk  English,”  said  the  judge,  “I  be- 
lieve I would  be  able  to  get  along  pretty 
well  in  Wales.” 

Some  ladies  who  were  occupying  the 
seats  in  the  rear  of  the  bench  alloted 
to  guests  of  the  commissioners,  were 
close  listeners  to  the  colloquy,  and 
evinced  an  interest  in  Mi.  Thomas 


which  would  indicate  they  never  before 
had  seen  a son  of  Gwalia. 

"Have  him  talk  some  Welsh,”  one  of 
the  ladies  whispered. 

A Sample  of  Welsh. 

“Say  to  me  in  Welsh,  ‘I  have  been 
twenty-one  years  in  the  country.’  I 
have  never  heard  the  Welsh  language 
spoken,”  requested  Judge  Gray. 

“Yn  yr  wlad  un  blynedd  ar  egan,” 
promptly  came  from  the  witness  box. 

“What’s  that?”  came  with  a snap 
from  the  official  stenographer. 

“Oh!  I guess  you  won’t  need  to  get 
that  on  the  record,  Mr.  Stenographer,” 
suggested  Judge  Gray,  at  which  there 
was  a general  laugh. 

As  the  witness  was  leaving  the  box, 
Judge  Gray  thanked  him  profusely. 

Mr.  Thomas’  testimony  was  to  the 
effect  that  the  $1,690.25  which  the  sta- 
tistics credited  him  with  earning  in 
1901,  was  divided  among  four  men,  two 
miners  and  two  laborers.  This  was  the 
money  earned  on  a contract  for  an  air- 
way. He  got  the  money  for  half  the 
coal,  and  all  the  yardage  and  timber- 
ing allowances.  His  partner  got  paid 
for  half  the  coal.  All  the  money  was 
put  together  and  equally  divided  be- 
tween them,  after  laborers  and  sup- 
plies were  paid  for.  His  net  earnings, 
he  said,  were  about  $700. 

Daniel  Evans,  another  Woodward 
miner,  was  credited  with  $1,520.  He  ex- 
plained that  this  was  earned  for  the 
most  part  working  four-handed.  For 
three  months  of  the  year  he  had  a 
miner  and  two  laborers  working  with 
him.  The  rest  of  the  time,  except  for 
a few  days  when  he  worked  single- 
handed,  the  place  was  worked  by  him- 
self and  a laborer.  The  miners  aver- 
aged about  $15  a week.  The  laborers 
were  paid  $2.53  a day  when  they  worked 
four-handed  and  got  out  nine  cars.  The 
witness  could  not  tell  how  much  the 
laborers’  pay  would  amount  to  in  a 
week,  as  he  could  not  remember  how' 
many  days  were  worked. 

Major  Warren  brought  out  the  fact 
on  cross-examination  that  all  the  cham- 
bers are  worked  two-handed,  except  for 
those  in  which  the  miner  does  the  cut- 
ting and  loading  unaided. 

Shadrach  Lewis,  also  a Woodward 
miner,  told  that  of  the  $1,984.53  credited 
to  his  “number”  on  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  statistics,  his 
net  earnings  were  $661.58.  Sometimes, 
he  said,  he  worked  with  another  miner 
and  four  laborers. 

A Day’s  Work. 

The  witness  was  asked  how  long  he 
had  to  work  to  earn  this  money. 

“A  nine-car  shift  will  keep  a miner  in 
all  day,”  said  the  witness. 

“What  do  you  mean  by  all  day?” 
asked  Judge  Gray. 

“Oh,  seven  or  eight  hours,”  replied 
the  witness. 

Superintendent  Reese  A.  Phillips,  of 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern mining  department,  took  a hand  in 
the  cross-examination  of  the  witness, 
and  showed  that  in  1901  the  Woodward 


worked  less  than  two  hundred  ten-hour 
days,  and  that  the  witness  never  worked 
on  days  the  mine  was  idle. 

Major  Warren  tried  energetically  to 
have  the  witness  tell  how  many  days 
he  actually  worked,  but  the  witness  had 
no  record  of  it,  and  would  not  give  any 
estimate  better  than  that  it  was  be- 
tween two  hundred  and  two  hundred 
and  fifty  days. 

Afternoon  Session. 

At  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  ses- 
sion, Attorney  James  L.  Lenahan  con- 
tinued the  calling  of  Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  men,  who  were 
credited  by  the  statistics  with  wages 
of  over  $1,000.  They  explained  that 
they  were  working  with  more  than  one 
laborer,  and  sometimes  with  a miner 
and  two  laborers,  and  that  their  share 
of  the  combined  wages  amounted  to 
only  $700  a year  or  thereabouts. 

John  Apple  and  William  Gregory,  of 
the  W’oodward;  Frank  Richards,  of  the 
Avondale;  John  J.  Williams,  of  the 
Bellevue;  Samuel  Gibbs,  of  the  Hamp- 
ton, and  Peter  Meager,  of  the  Hyde 
Park,  had  given  testimony  along  this 
line,  when  Major  Warren  reiterated  an 
objection  made  at  the  morning  session 
to  the  presentation  of  this  kind  of  tes- 
timony alleging  it  to  be  unfair  and  in 
violation  of  an  agreement  made  with 
the  miners’  representatives. 

When  the  company’s  statistics  were 
in  course  of  preparation.  Major  War- 
ren went  on  to  explain,  it  was  intend- 
ed to  make  a distribution  of  the  earn- 
ings of  a contract  on  the  basis  of  two- 
thirds  to  the  miner  and  one-third  to 
the  laborer.  The  representatives  of  the 
miners  protested  that  this  was  not  a 
fair  distribution  and  at  their  own  sug- 
gestion it  was  changed  to  64  per  cent, 
and  36  per  cent,  respectively.  Then, 
it  was  understood,  Major  Warren  de- 
clared, that  this  would  be  accepted  by 
all  parties  concerned  as  a fair  basis  of 
distribution.  The  fact  that  there  are 
some  four  handed  places  and  as  far  as 
averages  go  they  would  be  counterbal- 
anced by  single-handed  places  was 
mentioned  and  agreed  to.  This  being 
the  case,  it  was  unfair,  Major  Warren 
contended,  to  bring  in  the  few  four- 
handed  exceptions  to  the  general  two- 
handed  rule  and  have  them  throw 
discredit  on  all  the  statistics. 

Commissioner  Watkins  agreed  that 
the  exceptions  one  way  or  the  other 
ought  not  affect  the  general  averages 
for  distribution. 

Mr.  Darrow  emphatically  repudiated 
the  agreement  as  stated  by  Major  War- 
ren. His  understanding  of  it  was  that 
64-36  distribution  should  be  made  to 
apply  only  to  contracts  which  were 
worked  two-handed. 

Contract  with  Every  Miner. 

Judge  Gray  asked  if  there  was  any 
way  of  telling  how  many  of  the  items 
represented  four-handed  places. 

Major  Warren  explained  that  unlike 
some  other  companies,  which  have  but 
one  contractor  in  a place,  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  makes 


a contract  with  every  miner.  Some  one 
of  the  two  contractors  is  aocounted 
with  for  the  extras,  such  as  yardage, 
bailing  water,  timbering  and  the  like, 
but  both  appear  on  the  pay  roll  and 
in  the  statistics,  the  one  for  the  extras 
and  half  the  coal  and  the  other  for 
only  half  the  coal. 

This  was  news  to  Judge  Gray.  He 
had  understood  that  when  a miner  in 
a four-handed  place  was  credited  in 
the  statistics  with  say  $1,200  he  had  to 
divide  that  among  four  men.  The  fact 
that  the  other  miner  also  appeared  on 
the  roll  and  the  statistics  credited  him 
with  one-half  the  coal  sent  out  or 
something  in  the  neighborhood  of  $700 
or  $800,  was  not  known  to  the  judge. 
This  new  light,  he  said,  put  a different 
phase  on  the  case. 

Commissioner  Parker,  who  it  will  be 
remembered,  is  chief  statistician  of  the 
United  States  geological  survey,  gave 
it  as  his  opinion  that  even  in  as  small 
a number  as  one  hundred  men,  taken 
at  random,  the  average  would  be  cor- 
rectly obtained  by  the  method  the  Del- 
aware, Lackawanna  and  Western  com- 
Dany  pursued. 

There  was  some  further  exchanges 
between  the  lawyers  concerning  the 
agreement  in  question,  -when  Judge 
Gray  asked  Dr.  Neill,  assistant  record- 
er and  chief  statistician  for  the  com- 
missioners, to  take  the  stand  and  ex- 
plain what  the  agreement  was  as  he 
understood  it,  he  having  been  present 
when  it  was  made.  Dr.  Neill  said: 

“When  the  first  statements  were 
handed  in  concerning  the  wages,  one- 
third  of  the  gross  earnings  was  de- 
ducted from  the  net  earnings  of  each 
miner,  and  was  supposed  to  give  the 
actual  amount  left  for  each  miner.  That 
was  accepted  by  all  sides,  and  was  fig- 
ured in  open  court  by  Judge  Gray  in 
Scranton.  Two  months  after  this  be- 
gan, a claim  was  made  that  that  was 
not  high  enough.  Some  of  the  repre- 
sentatives on  the  miners’  side  claimed 
that  it  ought  to  be  37  or  38,  and  some 
even  said  it  might  be  40  per  cent.;  and 
the  companies  were  then  requested  to 
refigure  on  the  new  basis  of  something 
like  37  or  38  per  cent.  One  of  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  miners  said  that 
they  would  be  satisfied  with  38  per 
cent.,  and  at  a meeting  up-stairs,  at 
which  I was  present  without  any  au- 
thority from  anybody,  except  as  an 
on-looker,  it  was  suggested  that  they 
decide  on  37  per  cent. 

“I  said  in  that  meeting,  as  Judge 
Gray  said  a moment  ago,  that  the 
commission  would  not  accept  any 
agreemnt  entered  into  by  twTo  gentle- 
men two  or  three  hundred  miles  away 
from  the  mines;  and  I suggested  to 
Mr.  . Baker,  of  the  Lackawanna  and 
Western,  that  he  go  down  to  his  mines 
and  send  his  foremen  through  every 
colliery  in  the  mines,  and  ask  every 
miner  in  the  mines,  in  the  presence  of 
his  laborer,  what  he  paid  his  laborer 
last  year,  and  how  many  laborers  he 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

had,  and  how  long  they  worked  with 
him. 

“It  was  understood  then  that  this 
33  1-3  per  cent  was  wrong — not,  as  Mr. 
Darrow  says,  because  part  of  the  de- 
ductions were  made — but  because  the 
33  1-3  per  cent,  is  figured  on  the  gross 
earnings  of  the  miner  before  he  has 
taken  anything  out  for  deductions;  and 
the  difficulty  came  here — that  in  the 
strike  of  1900  the  miner  gave  his  laborer 
a fiat  increase  of  ten  per  cent.,  but  the 
miner’s  gross  earnings  only  increased 
2Vz  per  cent.  Therefore,  the  laborer’s 
proportion  to  the  gross  earnings  was  a 
little  more  than  33  1-3  per  cent. 

As  to  Laborers. 

“It  was  then  figured  out  that  some 
miners  had  more  than  one  laborer; 
some  might  have  two,  or  some  might 
have  three.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
were  miners  who  had  no  laborers,  and 
there  were  other  miners  who  had  a 
laborer  for  two,  three,  four,  five,  six,  or 
maybe  ten  months  in  the  year.  The 
idea  then  was  for  Mr.  Baker  to  have 
an  investigation  made,  and  find  what 
miners  had  more  than  one  laborer, 
and  those  that  had  one  laborer  for  part 
of  the  year.  That  was  done.  These 
figures  were  brought  down  and  sub- 
mitted to  some  representatives  of  the 
miners’  side.  They  went  over  them, 
and  found  that,  as  a matter  of  fact, 
counting  in  those  that  had  one  laborer 
and  one  laborer  for  only  part  of  the 
year,  the  relation  of  the  gross  was 
about  35  and  a fraction  per  cent.,  or 
practically  36;  it  was  made  36  per  cent. 

“It  was  then  decided  that  the  fairest 
thing  to  do  would  be  to  take  every 
miner  from  the  top  down,  whether  he 
had  two  laborers  or  one  laborer,  or  half 
a laborer,  and  deduct  36  per  cent.  Now, 
the  cases  that  have  been  presented  here 
today  are  cases  in  which  men  had  more 
than  one  laborer,  and  the  deduction 
should  have  been  more  than  36  per  cent. 
But,  according  to  the  statements  that 
Mr.  Baker  brought  down,  there  are 
other  cases  in  which  the  deduction 
would  only  have  been  20  per  cent.,  or 
perhaps  even  less  than  that;  and  the 
36  per  cent,  has  been  deducted  straight 
along.  So  that  for  all  the  cases  it  was 
assumed  that  in  proportion,  as  there 
■were  cases  whose  earnings  were  placed 
too  high,  there  were  other  cases  in 
which  the  earnings  were  placed  too  low. 

“And,  if  I have  been  able  to  follow 
the  testimony  correctly,  though  I may 
be  mistaken  in  the  name  of  the  man, 
the  case  the  chairman  spoke  about  a 
moment  ago,  for  example,  there  -was 
one  case  in  which  the  earnings  appear 
as  $1,200,  where  the  miner  says  he  only 
got  $660.  That  was  the  case  of  Shad- 
rach  Lewis.  Now,  he  says  that  his  as- 
sistant miner  there,  the  man  who 
worked  with  him  was  Evan  Griffith.  1 
did  not  find  any  Evan  Griffith  on  this 
roll  that  I had;  but  there  is  an  E.  P. 
Griffith  here,  and  if  he  is  the  same  man 
he  is  put  down  there  for  $144,  whereas 
he  got  the  difference  between  the  $661 
arid  the  $1,200  with  which  Lewds  is  cred- 


201 

ited,  which  would  have  brought  him  up 
from  the  $144  column  into  the  $650 
column.” 

"They  would  average  about  $800 
apiece?”  suggested  Commissioner  Par- 
ker. 

“No,”  said  Dr.  Neill;  “they  would 
average  about  $675,  or  something  like 
that,  apiece.  That  was  my  understand- 
ing. I was  not  present  at  the  time  this 
agreement  was  reached;  but  it  was  re- 
ported to  me  the  next  day  by  both  sides 
that  they  had  agreed  on  36  per  cent,  as 
about  a fair  deduction  to  be  taken  off 
every  single  name,  irrespective  of 
whether  the  man  had  one  laborer  or 
half  a laborer.  In  other  words,  it  would 
about  equalize. 

“It  would  be  true  that  there  would  be 
men  whose  earnings  would  appear  too 
high,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
would  be  men  whose  earnings  would 
appear  too  low,  and  they  said  that  the 
two  things  would  about  equalize  them- 
selves. As  I said  before,  my  under- 
standing was  that  that  was  based  on 
as  careful  an  investigation  as  could  be 
made  by  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna 
and  Western  company,  and  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  representatives  of  the 
miners’  side,  who  agreed  that  it  was  a 
fair  estimate,  and  as  near  the  fact  as  it 
was  possible  to  get.” 

“I  utterly  repudiate,”  said  Mr.  Dar- 
row, thoroughly  nonplussed,  “that  we 
agreed  not  to  investigate  how  many 
cases  there  were  of  men  working  four- 
handed  or  three-handed,  as  the  case 
might  be,  or  how  many  men  among 
these  high-wage  men  were  doing  con- 
tract work  on  airways  or  the  like,  where 
the  earnings  are  larger  than  in  regular 
chamber  work.” 

“Yes,”  assented  Judge  Gray.  "You 
may  show  this.  It  is  probably  import- 
ant to  know  whether  or  not  they  are  a 
negligible  proDortion.” 

More  Car  Witnesses. 

A number  of  witnesses  were  called 
during  the  afternoon  to  show  that  they 
can  not  get  the  full  shift  of  cars;  that 
they  are  willing  and  anxious  to  load 
them,  but  the  company  will  not  furnish 
them,  and  that  they  never  refused  to 
load  all  the  cars  they  could  get.  Each 
also  told  that  he  would  prefer  to  have 
the  payment  by  weight  system  substi- 
tuted for  the  present  per  car  system. 

John  A.  Davis,  of  the  Brisbin:  Grif- 
fith Powell,  of  the  Cayuga:  John  Kelly, 
of  the  Central,  were  Delaware,  Lacka- 
wanna and  Western  witnesses  who  gave 
this  sort  of  testimony.  Mr.  Powell  cre- 
ated a hearty  laugh  by  calling  out: 
"Here,  Phillips,  you  sit  down;  one  at 
a time  is  all  I can  handle,”  when  Super- 
intendent Phillips  stood  up  alongside 
Major  Warren  to  suggest  a question. 

Richard  Llewellyn,  of  the  Forest  City 
slope  of  the  Hillside  Coal  and  Iron 
company,  said  he  has  averaged  only 
three  cars  a day  on  a six-car  shift 
since  the  close  of  the  strike,  because 
the  company  will  not  furnish  the  cars. 
He  was  proceeding  to  tell,  also,  of  a 
man  being  blacklisted,  when  Major 


202 


proceedings  of  the  anthracite 


Warren  objected  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  only  hearsay.  Judge  Gray  sus- 
tained the  objection,  saying  blacklist- 
ing was  too  serious  a matter  to  be  dealt 
with  in  that  way. 

Anent  the  coal  famine,  the  witness 
told  that  the  two  breakers  at  Forest 
City  were  idle  a total  of  five  days  in 


January  by  reason  of  a scarcity  of  rail- 
road cars. 

Morris  Keefe,  of  the  Consolidated  col- 
liery of  the  Pennsylvania  company  at 
Dupont;  Puchard  F.  McHugh,  of  No.  10 
colliery  of  the  Pennsylvania  company 
at  Pittston;  William  Hopf,  of  the  No.  5 
colliery  of  the  Pennsylvania  company 


at  Dunmore,  and  John  Shananski  and 
Thomas  • Jennings,  of  Babylon  and 
Forty  Fort  collieries,  respectively,  of 
the  Temple  Iron  company,  told  of  the 
company  failing  to  furnish  them  their 
full  shift  of  cars. 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Feb.  5. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Feb.  ©.J 


Philadelphia,  Feb.  5.— After  a sitting 
of  exactly  fifty-one  days,  the  anthracite 
coal  strike  commission  concluded  the 
hearing  of  witnesses  at  5 o’clock  this 
afternoon,  and  adjourned  until  next 
Monday,  when  it  will  begin  to  hear  the 
arguments  of  counsel  representing  the 
several  sides.  The  arguments  will  take 
up  five  and  a half  days,  the  operators 
having  been  assigned  three  days,  and 
the  miners  the  remainder  of  the  time. 

Today’s  sessions  were  taken  up  in 
hearing  the  last  witnesses  presented  by 
the  miners  in  rebuttal.  Much  of  it  re- 
lated to  the  alleged  unequal  distribution 
of  mine  cars,  nearly  a dozen  witnesses 
testifying  that  they  could  load  more 
cars  than  the  companies  furnished 
them. 

In  all,  the  commission  heard  566  wit- 
nesses. Nine  of  these  were  called  by 
the  commission,  244  by  the  union 
miners,  155  by  the  non-union  miners 
and  158  by  the  operators.  The  stenog- 
raphers took  down  approximately  9,250 
typewritten  pages  of  testimony,  or  2,- 
300,000  words. 

A considerable  period  of  the  morning 
session  was  occupied  by  a discussion  of 
alleged  discrimination  at  a Moosic  col- 
liery of  the  Erie  company,  in  favor  of 
two  men  who  had  worked  during  the 
strike.  General  Manager  May  was 
called  to  the  stand  by  Judge  Gray  and 
questioned  at  length  concerning  the 
allegation.  Mr.  May  knew  nothing  of 
the  affair,  except  what  he  learned  from 
the  miners’  witness,  but  told  how  such 
a thing  possibly  could  have  taken  place 
without  being  an  injustice. 

“Jimmie”  Gallagher,  one  of  the  vic- 
tims of  the  Markle  evictions,  who  was 
"half-killed  twice,”  by  mine  accidents, 
according  to  his  testimony  in  Scran- 
ton, was  re-called  to  rebut  some  Mar- 
kle statistics,  and,  again,  provoked  no 
end  of  merriment  by  his  witty  answers. 

None  of  the  district  presidents  was 
called  to  the  stand,  although  President 
Mitchell  intimated  they  would  all  be 
called  to  testify.  Ex-District  President 
Duffy  took  the  stand  to  clear  himself 
of  the  charge  that  he  led  a mob  at 
Hazlebrook,  which  turned  back  some 
imports,  by  the  use  of  violence  and 
threats.  He  admitted  he  turned  back 
the  imports,  but  insisted  he  used  no 
violence  or  threats,  and  prevented 
others  from  doing  so.  It  was  brought 
out  on  cross-examination  that  he  be- 
came an  American  citizen  only  last 
month.  District  President  Nieholls  was 
present  at  the  sessions  since  Monday, 
but  District  President  Fahy  did  not  put 


in  an  appearance.  The  railroad  presi- 
dents and  bituminous  operators  were 
also  wanting  as  witnesses. 

The  Morning  Session. 

The  morning  session  was  opened  by 
Attorney  James  F.  Shea  with  a renew'al 
of  the  repulse  of  the  operators'  alle- 
gation that  the  miners  do  not  load  all 
the  cars  they  can  get. 

Philip  Clifford  and  John  Sheridan,  a 
laborer  and  miner  at  the  Central  shaft 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company  at 
Avoca,  told  that  they  can  not  get  the 
regular  shift  of  cars. 

William  Atwell,  a miner  at  the  Con- 
solidated colliery  of  the  Hillside  Coal 
and  Iron  company,  near  Moosic,  testi- 
fied that  he  w'as  one  of  a committee 
which  went  to  see  the  foreman  to  com- 
plain of  unequal  distribution  of  cars. 
Some  men,  he  said,  received  only  eigh- 
teen cars,  while  others  received  eighth- 
nine.  The  foreman  said  he  would  re- 
dress the  grievance.  He  failed  to  keep 
his  promise  and  when  the  committee 
went  to  him  again,  he  told  them  if  they 
didn’t  like  it  they  could  get  out. 

On  cross-examination,  Major  Warren 
developed  the  fact  that  the  only  com- 
plaint the  men  presented  was  that  the 
heading  men  were  receiving  more  cars 
than  the  chamber  men,  and  that  the 
foreman  told  them  as  long  as  he  was  in 
charge  the  heading  men  would  continue 
to  get  the  preference  whenever  it  is 
necessary  to  push  this  class  of  work. 
He  admitted  that  the  cars  are  divided 
equally  among  the  chamber  men. 

Later  the  witness  said  the  men  were 
satisfied  that  the  heading  men  should 
receive  the  preference  in  cars  when  nec- 
essary, but  what  they  objected  to  par- 
ticularly was  that  the  number  of  cars 
to  heading  men  was  being  increased  by 
widening  the  headings  to  eighteen  feet, 
which  the  men  considered  unnecessary. 

The  witness  had  an  incidental  com- 
plaint to  make  of  discrimination  in 
favor  of  Jimmie  Johns,  the  father-in- 
law  of  the  inside  foreman.  Jimmie  al- 
ways got  a full  shift  of  cars,  and  the 
boss  said  he  would  continue  to  get 
them. 

The  witness  produced  a schedule 
showing  that  the  foreman’s  father-in- 
law  and  another  non-union  miner,  both 
of  whom  worked  during  the  strike,  got 
out  about  forty  per  cent,  more  tonnage 
since  the  strike  than  the  union  men. 

Judge  Gray  studied  the  schedule  for 
a while  and  then  asked  General  Man- 
ager May  to  take  the  stand  and  ex- 
plain, if  possible,  how  there  were  such 


discrepancies.  Mr.  May  admitted  that 
he  did  not  know  anything  about  the  de- 
tails of  the  matter,  but  said  there  were 
a number  of  ways  in  which  such  dis- 
crepancies might  come  about. 

The  men  with  the  big  tonnage  might 
be  heading  men,  or  the  men  with  the 
small  tonnage  might  have  had  rock  to 
take  out,  and  their  coal  tonnage,  in 
consequence,  would  be  small.  It  was 
also  possible,  he  said,  that  the  driver 
boss  took  especial  care  to  see  to  it  that 
the  drivers  and  runners  did  not  dis- 
criminate against  the  two  non-union 
men  in  question  and  in  that  way  they 
were  more  than  well  taken  care  of. 

Cars  Were  Ordered. 

It  was  a further  fact,  Mr.  May  said, 
that  at  this  particular  colliery  there  is 
a shortage  of  mine  cars.  Orders  for 
new  cars  have  been  placed  since  last 
year  . but  on  account  of  the  big  demand 
for  material  all  over  the  country  it  has 
been  impossible  to  have  the  orders 
filled.  There  has  also  been  a scarcity 
of  railroad  cars,  he  said,  which  would 
be  a factor  in  accounting  for  the  gen 
eral  low  average  of  the  dally  cars  sent 
out. 

The  capacity  and  energy  of  the  men, 
Mr.  May  said,  also  became  a factor  in 
explaining  the  unequal  distribution  of 
cars. 

The  runners  and  drivers  sometimes 
are  at  fault  for  unequal  distribution, 
Mr.  May  further  said. 

“Can’t  you  discipline  them  and  com- 
pel them  to  make  an  equitable  distri- 
bution?” asked  Judge  Gray'. 

“We  attempt  to  discipline  them.”  the 
witness  answered,  “but  our  attempts 
are  unsuccessful,  owing  to  the  deterior- 
ation in  discipline  due  to  tne  union.” 

“The  unequal  distribution  is  due  to 
insubordination,  you  say,”  interrupted 
Commissioner  Clark,  “and  although  it 
is  objectionable  to  both  the  miners  and 
the  company,  it  still  goes  on?” 

“Yes,  that’s  true,”  assented  Mr.  May'. 

“A  pretty  condition,  surely,”  re- 
marked Commissioner  Clark. 

“Why'  is  it  the  drivers  give  to  non- 
union men  more  cars  than  to  union 
men?”  queried  Commissioner  Spalding. 

“This  is  the  first  I have  heard  of 
such  a thing  being  done,”  replied  Mr. 
May.  “I  do  not  know  that  it  is  done. 
If  it  is,  it  can  be,  accounted  for  possi- 
bly by  the  non-union  men  having  places 
that  must  be  driven  rapidly  to  reach 
air.  Possibly,  as  suggested  before,  the 
driver  boss  looks  after  the  non-union 
men  more  carefully'  than  the  others, 
because  of  the  likelihood  of  their  being 


discriminated  against  if  not  specially 
looked  after,  and  in  that  way  they  get 
more  than  the  average  share  of  cars.” 

“In  an  effort  to  do  them  justice,” 
suggested  Judge  Gray,  “you  do  the* 
others  an  injustice.  Isn’t  that  it?” 

"Possibly,”  said  Mr.  May. 

“Isn’t  that  a bad  condition,  Mr. 
May?” 

“It  is  a had  condition,”  he  candidly 
assented. 

“I  trust  you  will  see  that  it  is  reme- 
died.” 

“I  certainly  will,”  said  Mr.  May. 

"I  know  ■ you  will,”  remarked  the 
judge. 

Never  Heard  Complaints. 

In  answer  to  a question  by  Major 
Warren,  Mr.  May  stated  that  he  had 
never  heard  of  any  complaints  about 
unequal  distribution  at  this  mine  until 
this  very  morning. 

Judge  Gray  reverted  to  the  instances 
of  the  non-union  men  receiving  more 
cars  by  far  than  the  union  men  and 
suggested  it  was  possible  they  were  be- 
ing favored  intentionally,  because  they 
were  non-union  men. 

"I  do  not  know  that  that  is  so,  but  if 
it  is  I want  to  say  for  the  foreman 
that  it  is  a pretty  hard  thing  to  go 
back  on  those  who  stood  by  you  when 
you  were  in  need.” 

“It’s  bad  management  in  this  case, 
though.  Don’t  you  think  so?”  asked 
the  judge. 

“I  would  not  say  it  is  good  manage- 
ment. I do  not  know  it  is  being  done.” 

After  leaving  the  stand,  Mr.  May 
sent  out  immediately  to  have  the  fore- 
man at  the  colliery  to  telephone  his  ex- 
planation of  how  these  things  came 
about  that  the  miners,  on  the  face  of 
things,  have  justly  complained  of. 

James  O’Garrah,  a miner  from,  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  colliery  at  Jer- 
myn,  told  that  he  could  not  get  all  the 
cars  he  wanted,  and  that  the  heading 
men  were  given  the  preference  in  the 
distribution.  Mr.  Torrey  contented 
himself  on  cross  examination  with 
showing  that  there  are  vastly  too  many 
men  for  the  available  places  at  this 
colliery,  and  that  the  colliery  hss 
worked,  to  its  full  capacity  ever  since 
the  strike. 

Richard  Stevenson,  a 60-year-old 
miner  from  the  same  colliery,  who  has 
worked  in  the  mines  since  1866,  testi- 
fied that  he  loads  all  the  cars  he  can 
get.  On  cross-examination,  he  said  he 
had  little  complaint  to  make  of  the 
treatment  he  has  received  from  the 
company.  He  generally  gets  through 
work,  he  said,  at  II  o’clock  in  the 
morning. 

Patrick  J.  Toolan,  from  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company’s  Coalbrook  col- 
liery at  Carbondale,  would  load  more 
cars  if  he  got  them,  but  the  company 
gives  him  only  a partial  shift  of  cars. 
He  presented  weighing  sheets  for  twen- 
ty days,  to  show  discrimination  in  the 
distribution  of  cars.  Joe  Wilson,  John 
McAndrew,  John  Battle,  Mike  Bull  and 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

John  Bull,  he  said,  could  get  all  the 
cars  they  wanted,  for  years  past,  while 
others  were  not  able  to  get  a full  shift. 

Mr.  Torrey  showed  on  cross-examina- 
tion that  not  one  of  these  men  is  a 
chamber  miner;  that  each  of  them  is 
either  on  headings,  airways  or  road 
widening  work,  and  that  it  is  neces- 
sary that  men  on  this  class  of  work 
should  have  the  preference  in  cars. 

Too  Many  Men. 

"Isn’t  it  a fact  that  there  are  too 
many  men  at  that  colliery?”  asked  Mr. 
Torrey. 

“Yes,  that’s  all  of  the  trouble,”  the 
witness  admitted. 

“That  very  thing  has  been  running 
through  my  mind  for  a couple  of 
weeks,”  said  Judge  Gray.  “It  seems  to 
me  one  of  the  great  troubles  is  that 
there  are  100,000  men  trying  to  make 
a living  out  of  work  that  75,000  can  do.” 
“Why,”  asked  Mr.  Torrey  of  the  wit- 
ness, “do  you  not  go  to  some  of  the 
collieries  in  the  Wilkes-Barre  region 
where  your  men  testify  they  are  short- 
handed?” 

“I  would,”  replied  the  witness,  “if  I 
could  get  a good  job.” 

Anthony  Murphy,  of  Delaware  and 
Hudson  colliery  No.  2,  at  Olyphant,  told 
that  he  could  not  get  all  the  cars  he 
wanted,  and  admitted  on  cross-exam- 
ination that  there  are  far  too  many 
men  at  this  colliery. 

One  of  the  operators’  contentions  is 
that  “Demand  No.  3,”  of  the  miners’ 
union,  is  simply  an  additional  demand 
for  increased  wages.  President  Mitch- 
ell denied  that  this  was  so,  and  averred 
positively  the  only  purpose  was  to 
change  from  a system  which  causes 
misunderstanding  and  dissatisfaction. 

Patrick  J.  Ford,  a Lehigh  Valley 
miner  from  the  Heidleberg  colliery  near 
Pittston,  testified  he  wanted  a change 
from  the  per-car  to  the  per-weight 
system,  and  was  cross-examined  by 
Attorney  Franklin  I.  Gowen. 

“Why  do  you  want  your  coal 
weighed?”  asked  Mr.  Gowen. 

“Because,”  said  the  witness,  “it  is  a 
better  system.” 

“Why  is  it  better?” 

“Well.  I send  out  three  cars  at  97 
cents  a car  and  there  are  three  tons 
in  each  car.  Now  I don’t  think  that 
very  good.” 

“Then  you  want  a change  in  system 
so  as  to  get  an  increase  in  wages?” 
“Well,  it  is  this  way — ” 

“Now,  isn’t  it  a fact  you  want  to 
get  increased  pay  by  the  change?” 
“Yes,  that’s  it,”  reluctantly  said  the 
witness. 

“I  thought  so,”  remarked  Mr.  Gowen. 
“That’s  all.” 

Peter  Davelle,  John  Lally  and  An- 
thony Cain,  from  the  Lehigh  Valley 
company’s  colliery  at  Centralia,  denied 
the  allegation  made  by  Superintendent 
Robert  S.  Mercur  that  he  could  not 
induce  them  to  get  out  a full  shift  of 
cars,  even  during  the  coal  famine. 
They  could  not  get  what  cars  they 
wanted,  they  declared. 


203 

Mr.  Gallagher’s  Testimony. 

Mr.  Lavelle  admitted  in  answer  to 
Mr.  Gowen’s  questions,  that  he  earned 
$61.62  in  December,  and  $37.65  in  the 
first  half  of  January. 

James  Gallagher,  more  familiarly 
known  as  “Old  Jimmie  ^Gallagher,” 
whose  humorous  answers  at  the  Scran- 
ton session  made  him  one  of  the  char- 
acters who  will  live  in  the  history  of 
the  commission,  was  next  called  by 
Attorney  Darrow  to  attack  the  statis- 
tics of  George  B.  Markle  & Co. 

Mr.  Gallagher  is  one  of  the  thirteen 
Jeddo  men  refused  re-employment  by 
Markle  & Co.,  and  one  of  the  twelve 
who  were  evicted  from  the  Markle 
company  houses.  The  company  says 
these  men  were  guilty  of  conduct  dur- 
ing the  strike  which  made  them  un- 
desirable as  employes.  The  men,  them- 
selves, claim  they  were  discriminated 
against  because  they  were  officers  of 
the  union,  or  active  in  furthering  the 
strikers’  cause. 

The  statistics  submitted  to  the  com- 
mission show  that  Mr.  Gallagher  earn- 
ed $776  in  1901.  Mr.  Gallagher  averred 
that  this  figure  represents  the  earn- 
ings of  himself  and  his  minor  son,  who 
was  his  laborer. 

The  statistics  were  further  attacked 
by  Mr.  Gallagher  with  a statement  to 
the  effect  that  the  company  charges 
on  the  miners’  account  as  merchandise, 
a lot  of  articles  which  should  be  fig- 
ured as  expenses,  such  as  oil,  cotton, 
tools,  squibs  and  the  like.  He  figured 
that  these  supplies  amounted  to  $5.50 
a month. 

For  oil  he  paid  35  cents  a gallon  at 
the  company  store.  He  could  get  a 
better  quality  of  oil  for  eighteen  cents 
at  William  Boyle’s  store  in  Freeland. 
The  company  charged  him  five  cents  a 
foot  for  blasting  barrels.  At  Boyle’s 
store  he  could  get  them  for  three  and 
one-half  cents  a foot. 

In  the  Markle  & Co.  answer  there  is 
a table  showing  wages  earned  by  the 
eleven  best  paid  men  in  the  company's 
employ.  At  the  head  of  the  list  is 
Thomas  Elliott,  who  is  credited  with 
having  earned  $4,402  in  1901. 

“How  about  this  miner?”  asked  Mr. 
Darrow. 

An  Operator. 

“Sure,  he's  no  miner  at  all,”  said  Mr. 
Gallagher.  “He’s  an  operathur.” 

When  the  laughter  died  out,  Mr.  Gal- 
lagher proceeded  to  explain  that  Elliott 
has  been  handling  big  headings,  gang- 
way, cross-cut  and  airway  contracts 
for  fifteen  years,  and  usually  employes 
three  miners  and  six  laborers.  The 
$4,402,  the  witness  averred,  was  divided 
among  ten  men. 

It  would  be  impossible,  he  said  for 
a man  to  make  that  much  money  for 
himself.  He  would  have  to  drive 
eighty-five  yards  a month,  the  witness 
said,  and  that  is  impossible,  the  year 
around. 

Attornej’'  Samuel  Dickson  and  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  Sydney  Williams, 
of  Marke  & Co.,  in  answer  to  ques- 


204 

tions  from  the  commissioners,  asserted 
that  Elliott  earned  $4,402  net;  that  ths 
was  his  actual  profit  for  the  year,  and 
that  none  of  it  went  to  anybody  else. 
The  pay  roll  for  November,  1901,  w.  s 
produced,  and  it  showed  that  Elliott 
drew  in  cash,  as  his  share  of  the  earn- 
ings of  the  contract,  $206  for  two 
weeks. 

In  the  cases  of  the  ten  other  high- 
wage  men,  Mr.  Gallagher  insisted  that 
they  were  all  special  contract  men  and 
that  the  wages  with  which  the  statis- 
tics credited  them  were  divided  among 
several  men. 

Mr.  Dickson  denied  that  the  statistics 
represented  anything  other  than  the 
actual  net  earnings  of  the  different 
men.  He  asked  that  the  commission 
send  its  expert  statistician,  Dr.  Neill, 
to  Jeddo  to  verify  this  statement. 

Mr.  Gallagher  was  next  examined  as 
to  the  desirability  of  paying  by  weight. 
For  twenty  years,  to  his  “known  and 
knowledge,”  the  miners  have  wanted 
a change  from  the  per-car  to  the  per- 
weight  system.  It  would  put  the 
operators  to  a big  inconvenience,  he 
thought,  but  in  the  long  run  it  would 
be  better  to  pay  by  weight  or  else  pay 
by  cubical  contents  of  the  car.  Then, 
said  he,  the  company  could  send  in  any 
sized  car  it  saw  fit. 

“What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  most 
satisfactory  and  fair  way  for  paying?" 
asked  Judge  Gray. 

“Payment  by  weight,”  answered  the 
witness.  “If  you  pay  by  weight,  the 
car  won’t  grow,  or  if  it  does  grow,  the 
miner  won’t  care.” 

Mr.  Gallagher  then  made  the  allega- 
tion that  he  is  being  blacklisted. 

“I  can’t  get  a job,”  said  he.  “John 
Markle  has  put  me  down  as  a criminal, 
and  nobody  wants  to  hire  a criminal. 
He’s  deprived  me  of  my  means  of  liv- 
ing.” 

“What  criminal  act  does  he  charge 
you  with?”  asked  Mr.  Darrow. 

"I  don’t  know.  I met  him  one  day 
and  bein’  as  I knowed  him  s:nce  he  was 
in  short  pants,  I called  him  John. 
‘John,’  says  I,  ‘why  did  you  throw  me 
out?’  ‘For  the  same  reason  as  the 
others,’  says  he,  ‘for  criminal  acts.' 
'Where  and  when,’  says  I,  ‘did  I commit 
any  criminal  acts?’  ‘It’s  how  your 
memory  must,  be  short,’  says  he.  That’s 
all  I could  get  out  of  him.  He  wouldn't 
discuss  it  with  me.” 

“In  the  company’s  office,”  continued 
the  witness,  “there’s  a book  with  a 
black  stroke  forninst  the  name  of  every 
man  who  committed  a criminal  act. 
Mr.  Williams  there,  I don’t  know  him 
very  well,  but  I think  he’s  a gentleman, 
and  he’ll  tell  you  there’s  no  black  stroke 
forninst  the  name  of  Jimmy  Gallagher. 

“There  was  no  cause  for  us  to  commit 
any  criminal  acts  at  Jeddo,”  the  wit- 
ness went  on  to  say.  “We  had  no  one 
there  to  contend  with.  There  was  no 
one  working  and  no  non-union  men 
around.  There  was  no  one  to  have 
trouble  with,  even  if  we  were  willing  to 
have  trouble,” 


proceedings  of  the  anthracite 

On  cross-examination  it  was  shown 
that  Elliott,  the  star  wage-earner, 
worked  his  nine  men  in  three  shifts,  ot 
eight  hours  each,  and  that  in  the  first 
two  weeks  of  August  they  drove  fifty 
yards  of  gangway  and  fifty  yards  of 
cross-cut.  Mr.  Gallagher  admitted  this 
was  quite  possible  if  they  worked  in 
three  shifts. 

Commissioner  Watkins  asked  the  wit- 
ness what  he  -thought  of  the  day  wage 
system  of  paying  miners.  Mr.  Galla- 
gher thought  it  was  all  right  and  that 
the  miner  ought  to  get  between  $4  and 
$5  a day.  Commissioner  Watkins  asked 
him  how  he  would  protect  the  company 
from  imposition  by  lazy  or  incompetent 
miners.  The  witness  said  that  if  a man 
did  not  cut  his  regular  shift  of  cars  he 
could  have  his  wages  cut  down  pro- 
portionately. The  commissioner  pointed 
out  that  this  was  getting  back  to  the 
contract  per-car  system.  The  witness 
had  to  admit  that  it  was. 

Commissioner  Clark  suggested  that  if 
the  miners  were  paid  by  the  day,  the 
company  would  likely  see  to  it  there 
was  no  shortage  of  cars. 

Afternoon  Session. 

Superintendent  Sydney  Williams,  of 
Markle  & Co.,  was  called  to  the  stand 
by  Attorney  McCarthy  for  cross-exam- 
ination on  the  matter  of  the  company’s 
pay  rolls.  The  lawyer  was  unsuccess- 
ful in  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  high 
wage  men  previously  referred  to  had 
to  divide  with  a number  of  laborers 
the  earnings  accredited  to  them  by  the 
statistics.  Mr.  Williams  also  testified 
that  the  oil  sold  at  the  company  stoie 
was  of  a special  quality  made  for  the 
company  by  the  Atlantic  Refining  com- 
pany. 

James  J.  Burke,  of  Dorrancetown, 
who  was  serving  as  a coal  and  iron  po- 
liceman at  the  William  A.  colliery  of 
the  Lehigh  Valley  company  at  the  time 
Luiggi  Vinazzi  was  found  dead  just 
outside  the  stockade,  admitted,  in  an- 
swer to  questions  by  Attorney  John  J. 
Murphy  that  a fellow  coal  and  iron 
policeman  named  Bailey  admitted  to 
him  that  he  shot  Venazzi.. 

In  telling  of  Bailey’s  admission,  the 
witness  said; 

"I  was  eating  my  lunch  at  the  time, 
and  I thought  the  shot  came  from  my 
post.  I had  left  another  man  to  my 
post,  while  going  to  lunch,  and  when  I 
went  up  there  I asked  him  was  it  he 
fired  the  shot.  He  said  no,  it  was  Bai- 
ley. Bailey  came  up  afterwards  and  I 
says.  ‘Did  you  fire  that  shot?’  He  says 
’Yes.’  ‘Did  you  kill  him?’  He  says, 
‘No,  I don't  think  I did.’  I says,  ‘How 
was  it?1  So  he  said,  ‘I  saw  the  fellow 
passing  by,  the  chief  and  myself — Chief 
Kline  he  had  reference  to — passing  by 
the  fence,  and  I found  a barrel,  and, 
while  I was  getting  up,  he  exploded  a 
revolver.’  I remember  distinctly  the 
five  shots  fired,  two  bang,  bang — bang, 
bang,  bang.  Bailey  got  up  on  this  oil 
barrel  and  looked  over  the  fence,  and 
he  says  to  Kline,  ‘Will  I kill  him? 


Kiine  says  ‘No,  scare  him.  So  1 p.inted 
the  gun  in  his  direction — I first  saw  he 
moved  in  close  to  the  fence,  so  I ju  t 
pointed  my  gun  in  his  direction  and  .et 
it  go.’  I says,  ‘Did  you  kill  him?’  He 
says,  ‘No,’  I don’t  think  I did.’  T says, 
'Did  you  hear  him  run?’  He  says  ‘No.’ 
I says,  ‘We  will  find  a dead  Italian  in 
the  morning.’  So  when  morning  came, 
along  we  went — the  five  of  us — and 
found  Venazzi’s  body.” 

On  cross-examination,  Attorney  John 
T.  Lenahan  brought  out  the  fact  that 
the  witness  hase  been  having  a very 
hard  sort  of  a life  at  Doranceton,  since 
the  close  of  the  strike,  and  only  last 
Monday  morning,  while  on  his  way  to 
work,  was  set  upon  by  two  miners  and 
given  a brutal  beating. 

Dr.  W.  M.  L.  Coplin,  professor  of 
pathology  in  Jefferson  Medical  college 
and  bacteriologist  of  the  state  board 
of  health,  exhibited  five  jars  contain- 
ing lungs,  one  of  them  a normal  lung, 
which  was  almost  white,  and  four  of 
them  lungs  of  miners,  more  or  less 
blackened,  by  inhalation  of  coal  dust, 
one  of  them  being  as  black  as  coal  it- 
self. He  also  exhibited  to  the  commis- 
sioners with  the  aid  of  microscopes 
sections  of  a normal  lung  and  a miner's 
lung  seriously  affected  with  anthra- 
cosis  or  discoloration  and  poisoning 
from  anthracite  coal  dust.  Anthraco- 
sis,  the  doctor  said,  was  liable  by  irri- 
tation to  induce  bronchitis  and  con- 
sumDtion. 

On  cross-examination.  Major  Warren 
secured  an  admission  from  the  witness 
that  the  American  Journal  of  Medi- 
cine, a recognized  authority  in  the  pro- 
fession, declared  in  a discussion  of  the 
testimony  of  the  doctors  at  the  Scran- 
ton session,  that  surprising  as  it  might 
seem  in  the  face  of  this  testimony  min- 
ing was  a healthful  occupation. 

The  doctor  also  admitted  that  the 
inhalation  of  coal  dust  was  less  dan- 
gerous than  that  of  any  other  of  the 
dusts  commonly  inhaled,  such  as  wood 
and  stone  dusts.  It  was  possible,  too. 
the  witness  said,  that  coal  dust  could 
be  taken  into  the  lungs  without  harm. 
The  particles  have  no  tendency  to  be- 
come encysted,  and  when  they  do  they 
are  rendered  harmless.  There  is  no 
poison  in  the  dust  of  coal,  h?  further 
admitted,  as  in  some  metals. 

On  further  cross-examination  by  Mr. 
Darrow  the  witness  said  that  of  course 
the  presence  of  any  foreign  substance 
in  the  body  was  not  conducive  to 
health. 

The  first  of  the  district  presidents  of 
the  United. Mine  Workers  to  appear  on 
the  stand  was  Thomas  Duffy,  of  Mc- 
Adoo.  who  was  president  of  District 
No.  7 during  the  strike. 

It  was  testified  to  on  the  operators' 
side  by  Superintendent  Weber,  of  the 
Wentz  & Co.  Hazlebrook  colliery,  that 
President  Duffy  used  threats  and  in- 
cited violence  to  prevent  seventeen  im- 
ports from  taking  the  places  of  the 
striking  steam  men.  Twelve  of  the 
seventeen  men  were  induced  to  desert 


soon  after  their  arrival  at  the  station, 
and  President  Duffy  paid  their  way 
back  to  Philadelphia. 

President  Duffy  denied  having  made 
threats  or  incited  violence  to  accom- 
plish the  winning  over  of  the  imports. 
He  heard  they  were  coming  and  went 
down  to  Lumber  Yard  Junction  to  meet 
them.  He  boarded  the  train  and  ac- 
companied them  to  Hazlebrook.  A 
large  crowd  was  assembled  at  the  de- 
pot and  some  boys  and  girls  called 
them  “scabs.”  The  witness  quieted  the 
crowd,  warned  them  to  behave  and 
then  called  on  the  imports  to  be  men, 
refuse  to  take  other  men’s  places,  and 
go  back  to  Philadelphia.  He  succeed- 
ed in  winning  over  twelve  of  them  and 
paid  their  way  back  to  Philadelphia. 
The  next  day  the  others  were  sent 
home.  He  denied  emphatically  that  he 
called  the  imports  profane  names. 

Attorney  Samuel  Dickson  cross-ex- 
amined President  Duffy.  He  first 
brought  out  the  fact  that  Mr.  Duffy 
came  to  this  country  in  1886,  became 
president  of  District  No.  7 in  1898,  and 
did  not  become  naturalized  until  the 
third  of  last  month. 

Mr.  Duffy  was  reluctantly  compelled 
to  admit  that  he  knew  these  imports 
were  brought  in  to  man  the  pumps 
and  save  the  colliery  from  destruction, 
and  that  as  a result  of  the  company’s 
failure  to  get  men,  the  colliery  was 
drowned  out  and  is  still  drowned.  The 
shortage  of  coal,  as  a result,  is  in- 
creased 5,000  tons,  and  between  300  and 
350  men  are  thrown  idle. 

When  asked  why  the  steam  men  were 
called  out  in  1902  and  had  not  been 
called  out  in  1900,  Mr.  Dufry  explained 
that  in  1901  the  steam  men  went  on  an 
independent  strike,  and  were  forced 
back  at  work,  with  t'he  understanding 
that  when  the  mine  workers  in  general 
should  present  grievances  they  would 
be  allowed  to  strike  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  their  demands.  The  steam 
men  renewed  their  demand  for  privi- 
lege to  strike  for  the  enforcement  of 
their  demands,  and  they  were  told  that 
they  might  strike  if  the  operators  did 
not  grant  them  an  eight-hour  day. 

Mr.  Duffy  admitted  the  truth  of  the 
allegation  that  the  union  refused  per- 
mission to  the  Sandy  Run  union  to 
supply  men  to  work  the  pumps  and 
that  as  a result  the  mine  is  still  idle. 

Judge  Gray  asked  President  Duffy 
what  would  have  happened  to  the 
Hazlebrook  imports,  if  they  had  “exer- 
cised their  right”  to  persist  m working. 

Mr.  Duffy  declared  nothing  would 
have  happened  to  them.  “I  went  there 
for  the  purpose  of  helping  to  keep  the 
peace,”  declared  Mr.  Duffy. 

Henry  Collins,  of  Carbondale,  na- 
tional organizer  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  gave  his  side  of  the  strike  in- 
cidents at  the  Black  Diamond  colliery, 
of  Carbondale,  related  by  President  W. 
G.  Thomas. 

President  Thomas  in  his  testimony 
stated  that  he  made  application  to 
Organizer  Collins,  during  the  strike,  for 
eight  men  to  clean  up  a fall;  that  the 


MINE  STRIKE  CbMMISSION  • 

request  was  refused;  that  the  fall 
dammed  up  the  water  and  caused  a 
flood,  which  did  $5,000  damages.  Mr. 
Collins  admitted  this  was  so,  but  ex- 
plained that  he  was  willing  to  allow  the 
men  to  go  to  work  if  the  union  demands 
were  granted. 

President  Thomas  also  stated  that  the 
union  called  off  his  watchmen,  although 
the  watchmen  petitioned  him  to  let 
them  work.  Mr.  Collins  said  as  to  this 
that-he  told  the  watchmen  to  tell  Presi- 
dent Thomas  they  might  work  if  he 
granted  them  an  eight-hour  day. 

Mr.  Collins  further  testified  that  he 
made  an  investigation  since  the  strike 
and  satisfied  himself  that  the  work  for 
which  the  men  had  been  wanted  was 
not  necessary  to  the  protection  of  the 
mine. 

George  W.  Hartlein,  secretary  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  the  Ninth  dis- 
trict, testified  that  last  week’s  reports 
showed  1,976  men  still  idle  m that  dis- 
trict. The  week  previous  the  number 
was  2,400.  On  cross-examination  by  Mr. 
Wolverton,  it  was  shown  that  practic- 
ally all  these  men  are  idle  as  a reason 
of  the  flooding  of  mines,  from  which 
the  union  called  the  steam  men. 

It  was  charged  that  the  union  called 
out  the  stable  bosses  at  Hazlebrook  and 
made  it  necessary  to  send  the  mules  out 
on  pasture.  To  refute  this,  Secretary 
Hartlein  read  a letter  which  he  sent  to 
the  Hazlebrook  local,  advising  that  the 
stable  bosses  be  not  called  out.  The 
letter  was  offered  in  evidence.  It  con- 
tained this  clause:  "I  do  not  think  it 

is  right  that  poor  dumb  mules  should 
suffer  for  the  obstinacy  of  their  own- 
ers.” 

A batch  of  letters  sent  out  by  Secre- 
tary Hartlein  during  the  strike,  ad- 
monishing against  violence,  were  read. 
Judge  Gray  ran  across  one  letter  in 
which  permission  was  given  a union 
man  to  act  as  a watchman  at  a colliery, 
providing  he  should  not  serve  as  a 
deputy  sheriff  or  coal  and  iron  police- 
man. Judge  Gray  wanted  to  know  why 
the  men  should  be  forbidden  to  act  as 
deputy  sheriffs  and  coal  and  iron  police. 
“Is  it  not  a duty  of  citizenship?” 
sternly  asked  the  judge.  Mr.  Hartlein 
offered  no  answer. 

Executive  Board  Member  Terrence 
Ginley  testified  that  he  and  other  offi- 
cers of  the  union  offered  to  furnish 
deputies  from  the  ranks  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  to  Sheriff  Beddell.  He 
expressed  the  opinion,  also,  that  $3  was 
a fair  day’s  wage  for  eight  hours’  work. 

One  of  the  last  witnesses  called  by 
the  miners  was  a well-dressed,  good- 
looking,  smiling-visaged  young  man 
from  Pottsville,  who  gave  his  name  as 
W.  H.  Jenkins.  He  was  called  to  dis- 
credit the  claim  that  the  coal  and  iron 
police  who  served  during  the  strike 
were  eminently  respectable  gentlemen. 
Jenkins  succeeded  in  at  least  discredit- 
ing himself.  His  ready  and  smiling 
admissions  that  he  was  a general  all- 
around  bad  ’un  fairly  disgusted  Judre 
Gray. 

Jenkins,  in  reply  to  questions,  vol- 


205 

unteered  the  information  that  he  had 
been  engaged  as  a lieutenant  of  the 
coal  and  iron  police  for  the  Reading 
company;  he  had  been  arrested  for 
burglary,  assault  and  battery  and  lar- 
ceny. He  also  said  he  had  been 
charged  with  shooting  two  coal  and 
iron  policemen. 

“Mr.  Jenkins,  you  were  known 
throughout  Schuylkill  county  as  'blood 
and  thunder  Jenkins’  were  you  not?” 
inquired  ex-Congressman  Brumm,  of 
counsel  for  the  miners. 

“Yes,  sir.”  was  the  reply. 

“Cross-examine,”  said  the  lawyer. 

“I  don’t  think  this  witness  should  be 
cross-examined,”  exclaimed  Chairman 
Gray,  with  considerable  feeling;  “he 
has  discredited  himself  as  a witness. 
You  may  leave  the  stand.” 

Attorney  Wolverton,  of  the  Reading 
company,  remarked  to  the  commission, 
that  he  was  about  to  ask  the  witness 
how  many  criminal  acts  he  had  com- 
mitted without  being  arrested. 

The  attorneys  for  the  operators  and 
the  miners  then  presented  some  statis- 
tics on  various  subjets,  and  Mr.  Dar- 
row  announced  that  the  miners’  case 
was  closed.  This  ended  the  hearing  of 
witnesses  for  both  sides. 

Chairman  Gray’s  Remarks. 

In  reply  to  this  announcement,  Chair- 
man Gray,  speaking  on  behalf  of  the 
commission,  said,  among  other  things: 

“Well,  gentlemen,  we  have  had  a 
very  protracted  hearing.  In  some  re- 
spects the  hearing  has  been  an  unexam- 
pled one,  I think,  in  the  experience  of 
this  country.  The  commission  has  en- 
deavored to  keep  wide  open  the  dooi  s 
by  which  testimony  could  come  to  us 
that  would  throw  any  light  upon  the 
various  very  serious  questions  that  we 
have  to  consider;  and  we  wish  now  to 
thank  the  counsel  on  both  sides  for 
their  co-operation  and  assistance  in  the 
elucidation  of  the  complex  questions 
that  have  been  presented  to  us. 

“On  the  whole,  we  congratulate  the 
counsel  on  the  fairness  and  thorough- 
ness with  which  they  have  presented 
their  several  sides  of  the  case.  There 
has  been  much  to  excite  feeling,  much 
to  appeal  to  the  passions  of  men  in  this 
matter.  We  feel  that  it  is  a matter  of 
congratulation,  and  that  we  ought  to 
congratulate  both  sides  and  their  coun- 
sel, on  the  good  temper,  fairness  and 
conciliatory  spirit  in  which  they  have 
urged  their  claims,  and  with  which,  by 
their  opponents,  those  claims  have  be  n 
met  and  resisted. 

It  was  then  agreed  that  the  miners 
should  open  and  close  the  arguments, 
taking  Monday  and  Friday  and  a part 
of  Saturday.  The  operators  and  non- 
union men  will  divide  Tuesday,  Wed- 
nesday and  Thursday  between  them. 

Mr.  Darrow  asked  if  the  daily  ses- 
sions could  not  be  extended  a little  if 
it  was  found  they  were  pinched  f r 
time  in  which  to  present  their  argu- 
ments. 

“Yes,  yes,”  said  Bishop  Spalding. 


206 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


with  feigned  impatience.  “We’ll  put 
on  a night  shift  if  necessary.” 
Nothing  was  said  by  any  of  the  par- 
ties or  the  commissioners  anent  the 
matter  of  calling  the  railroad  presi- 
dents or  the  operators  of  the  bitumin- 
ous region.  The  failure  of  the  com- 
missioners to  adopt  the  miners’  sugges- 
tion that  soft  coal  operators  be  called 
to  testify  to  the  desirability  of  recog- 
nizing the  union,  is  generally  accepted 


as  proof  positive  that  the  commission 
has  decided  it  is  not  to  deal  with  the 
question  of  recognition. 

As  the  closing  hour  approached  all 
the  parties,  lawyers,  operators,  super- 
intendents, union  leaders,  newspaper- 
men and  spectators  were  standing  in  a 
closely  packed  group  in  front  of  the 
commissioners’  bench  participating  in 
or  giving  close  attention  to  the  closing 
words  of  the  chairman.  Many  pleas- 


ant quips  were  exchanged  and  after 
adjournment  there  was  a period  of 
general  handshaking.  From  a survey 
of  the  scene  presented  as  the  session 
came  to  an  end  it  was  with  some  dif- 
ficulty that  one  could  bring  himself  to 
realize  that  the  men  clasping  hands  all 
around  him  had  been  engaged  for  half 
a hundred  days  in  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  vigorously  conducted  con- 
troversies known  to  modern  history. 


Proceedings  of  Monday,  Feb.  9. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Feb.  lO.] 


Philadelphia,  Feb.  9. — The  first  day 
of  the  arguments  before  the  mine  strike 
commission  was  enlivened  to  the  point 
of  being  exciting  by  a brush  between 
President  George  F.  Baer,  of  the  Phila- 
delphia & Reading  company  and  Ex- 
Congressman  Charles  Brumm,  of  Potts- 
ville,  one  of  the  miners’  attorneys. 

Mr.  Brumm  was  reading  his  closing 
address,  part  of  which  had  evidently 
been  written  before  last  week,  when 
denial  was  made  of  the  allegation  that 
President  Baer  declared  at  the  white 
house  conference  that  the  miners  were 
responsible  for  21  murders,  and  as  a 
consequence,  Mr.  Brumm  probably  un- 
wittingly repeated  the  falsehood. 

President  Baer  jumped  to  his  feet, 
criticized  Mr.  Brumm  severely  for  re- 
peating the  lie  and  a heated  colloquy 
ensued,  the  details  of  which  are  given 
below. 

Mr.  Baer  came  into  the  session  at  the 
opening  hour  and  remained  all  day. 
It  is  the  first  time  a coal  road  president 
put  in  an  appearance  at  the  hearings 
if  exception  is  made  of  E.  B.  Thomas, 
who,  while  chairman  of  the  Erie  board 
of  directors,  looked  in  on  the  Scranton 
session  on  a few  occasions. 

Mr.  Baer  shook  hands  with  Attor- 
neys O’Brien  and  Warren,  and  then 
took  a seat  at  the  rear  of  the  bar  en- 
closure alongside  ex-Senator  Wolver- 
ton,  the  Reading’s  attorney  before  the 
commission. 

Clarence  S.  Darrow,  chief  counsel 
for  the  miners,  was  introduced  to  Presi- 
dent Baer  by  ex-Senator  Wolverton. 
Mr.  Darrow  and  Mr.  Baer  conversed 
for  ten  minutes  while  Mr.  McCarthy 
was  proceeding  with  his  address.  They 
were  the  cynosure  of  all  eyes  as  they 
inclined  their  heads  so  as  to  be  able 
to  converse  in  low  tones,  and  ex- 
changed what  according  to  their  nods 
and  laughs  must  have  been  pleasant 
generalities.  Mr.  Baer  proposes  to 
hear  all  the  arguments  that  he  may 
know  what  he  is  to  make  answer  to, 
when  he  comes  to  sum  up  for  the 
operators. 

Mr.  McCarthy  entered  upon  his  ad- 
dress at  10.30  o’clock  and  continued 
until  2.45  o’clock  with  a stop  of  an  hour 
and  a quarter  for  luncheon.  He  was 
followed  by  Henry  Demorest  Lloyd  and 
ex-Congressman  Charles  Brumm,  who 
divided  the  remainder  of  the  afternoon 
between  them. 


Mr.  McCarthy  was  listened  to  with 
close  attention  by  the  commissioners 
and  many  of  the  onlookers.  Plis  flights 
of  flowery  eloquence  and  scathing  ar- 
raignment of  the  miners’  oppressors 
were  provocative  of  a general  inclina- 
tion to  applaud,  which  was  only  re- 
strained by  the  contemplation  of  the 
seriousness  of  the  occasion. 

Mr.  McCarthy’s  Remarks. 

In  his  introductory  remarks,  Mr.  Mc- 
Carthy, on  behalf  of  the  miners’  repre- 
sentatives, thanked  the  commission  for 
its  forbearance  during  the  long  days 
of  the  hearings.  He  then  went  on  to 
tell  that  he  began  work  in  the  mines  at 
the  age  of  eight  years  and  continued  in 
or  about  the  mines  for  twenty-five 
years.  In  the  days  of  the  Workmen's 
Benevolent  association,  he  was,  he  said, 
a district  president  before  he  was  21 
years  of  age.  He  kept  some  memor- 
anda of  events  of  these  days  and  from 
these  he  wrote  a sketch  of  the  early 
history  of  trades  unionism  among  the 
miners.  This  sketch  was  read  to  tne 
commission,  together  with  a history  of 
the  early  days  of  the  Reading  company 
to  show  that  in  breaking  up  the  Work- 
men’s Benevolent  association, the  Read- 
ing almost  bankrupted  itself.  The 
Reading,  he  said,  has  never  recovered. 
The  Workmen’s  Benevolent  assocjatlon 
is  today  living  in  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America. 

Mr.  McCarthy’s  rough-shod  handling 
of  the  Reading  was  listened  to  with 
evidences  of  mixed  interest  and  amuse- 
ment by  President  Baer. 

Mr.  McCarthy  entered  hesitatingly 
upon  the  questions  at  issue.  After  dis- 
posing of  the  prefatory  sketch  and  his- 
tory, he  spent  half  an  hour  in  an  an- 
thropological treatise  of  the  matter  of 
"master  and  man.”  Disposing  of  this 
he  finally  got  into  the  subject  of  the 
conditions  of  the  anthracite  region.  He 
said,  in  part: 

The  Right  to  Live  on  Earth. 

When  man  was  placed  upon  this  earlh 
it  gave  him  the  inherent  right  to  live 
upon  it.  When  God  ordained  that  man 
should  eat  his  bread  from  the  sweat  of 
his  brow.  God  intended  then  that  meant 
all  of  the  necessities  that  the  earth  pro- 
duced should  be  his.  Nature  has  done  her 
part  to  contribute  to  the  necessities  and 
comfort  of  mankind,  and  it  has  been  man 
alone  that  has  been  instrumental  in 
changing  this  law  of  Nature.  It  never 


was  contemplated  by  Nature,  or  by  Na- 
ture’s God,  that  two  children  coming 
into  the  world  at  the  same  time,  the  one 
the  scion  of  the  rich  man,  the  other  the 
child  of  the  poor  man,  that  the  former 
should  inherit  large  portions  of  the  earth 
and  the  service  of  hundreds  of  human 
beings  to  wait  upon,  and  the  other  not 
to  have  a single  spot  to  lay  its  foo  , 
only  at  the  will  and  caprice  of  the  other. 

America  has  been  a history-making 
nation  since  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence. The  age  in  which  we  live  is  the 
most  progressive  the  world  has  ever 
known.  Rapid  developement  in  science 
and  every  branch  of  industry  has  been 
made.  Not  only  along  scientific  and  in- 
dustrial lines  has  progress  been  made, 
but  also  along  sociological  lines.  The 
condition  of  mankind  is  steadily  improv- 
ing, because  of  this  phenomenal  develop- 
ment. This  development  causes  the  con- 
dition now  confronting  us— that  of  the  in- 
equality of  man. 

In  all  ages  there  have  been  times  when 
it  became  necessary  to  redress  certain 
wrongs  and  grievances,  and  it  always 
seemed  as  though  Providence  provided 
the  proper  instrument  to  accomplish  the 
desired  result. 

Only  in  countries  where  the  higher 
civilization  prevails  do  you  find  organiza- 
tion and  strikes  among  workmen.  In 
China,  for  example,  men  work  for  six 
cents  a day  and  the  strike  was  never 
heard  of.  The  first  strike  of  which  we 
have  a record  is  that  of  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt,  when  they  broke  the  bonds  that 
held  them  in  slavery  in  the  brickyards 
of  Rharoah.  It  was  also  the  longest 
strike  on  record,  as  the  Jews  never  went 
back. 

Our  country  is  the  greatest  country  in 
the  world  for  union.  Our  first  strike  for 
union  was  the  War  for  Independence, 
and  was  for  union  against  King  George, 
one  of  the  greatest  of  non-union  men. 
The  non-union  men  of  that  day  were  the 
Tories.  They  were  loyal  to  King  George, 
just  as  the  non-union  men  of  today  are 
alleged  to  be  loyal  to  the  coal  companies. 
The  first  practical  miners’  organization  in 
the  anthracite  region  was  organized  at 
St.  Clair  in  1SGS.  It  was  known  as  the 
old  M.  B.  A.  This  organization  entered 
into  an  agreement  with  the  coal  com- 
panies at  that  time,  on  what  is  known  as 
the  “three  dollar  basis.”  This  continued 
until  1S75,  when  the  Philadelphia  and 
Reading  Railroad  company  obtained  con- 
trol of  the  collieries  and  succeeded  in 
breaking  the  miners’  union  and  also  in 
bankrupting  the  company.  From  1S75  un- 
til 1SS3.  wages  were  at  a very  low  ebb 
in  the  coal  regions,  and  with  the  advent 
of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  began  to  im- 
prove until  1SS7,  when  a strike  took  place, 
the  miners  losing. 

This  ended  the  Knights  of  Labor  as  a 


factor  In  the  regulation  of  wages  and 
conditions  in  the  anthracite  region.  The 
next  attempt  was  the  organization  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers,  in  1900,  with  a com- 
plete organization  of  the  entire  region. 
Since  the  advent  of  the  union,  the  miners 
claim  that  the  men  are  now  independent. 
This  is  absolutely  true,  and  is  as  it 
should  be. 

The  miner  must  use  an  enormous 
amount  of  energy  to  load  six  cars  of  coal 
in  a day.  The  coal  must  be  handled  at 
least  twice,  and  all  slate  and  impurities 
removed,  and  all  this  work  must  be  done 
in  a foul  and  vitiated  atmosphere.  The 
miners’  occupation  is  extremely  dan- 
gerous. If  a miner  were  to  avoid  all  the 
dangers  and  risk  incurred  in  his  employ- 
ment, he  would  never  work  a day  in  the 
mine.  Hp  has  always  hanging  over  him, 
liability  to  accident  and  death  from  gas, 
gas  explosions,  powder  explosions,  prema- 
ture blasts,  falling  coal,  falling  timber, 
props  breaking,  cars  running  away,  and 
many  other  causes. 

Mr.  Markle,  in  his  public  utterances, 
has  taken  great  pains  to  hold  up  Mr. 
Mitchell  as  being  something  infamous, 
as  something  criminal  and,  indirectly, 
holding  Mr.  Mitchell  responsible  for  all 
the  disorder  that  existed  during  the 
strike.  The  advent  of  Mr.  Mitchell  into 
the  anthracite  coal  regions  was  like  unto 
a Moses  unto  the  people  of  Israel.  Mit- 
chellism  stands  for  humanity,  for  justice, 
for  patriotism,  it  stands  for  all  that  is 
good  and  noble  in  man,  while  in  Markle- 
ism  we  find  the  antithesis  of  Mitchellism, 
injustice,  oppression,  tyranny  and  char- 
acter besmirching.  The  evictions  at  Jed- 
do  are  dealt  with  flippantly  by  Mr.  Markle 
in  his  statement  to  the  public.  He  argues 
with  great  force  that  he  was  within  his 
legal  rights;  that  it  was  no  concern  of 
his  whether  those  thirteen  helpless  fami- 
lies had  a place  of  shelter  or  not.  It  was 
no  concern  of  his  whether  Mrs.  Coll  was 
dying  or  whether  her  aged  and  blind 
mother  had  a place  of  rest.  He  was 
clearly  within  his  legal  rights  there,  for 
none  should  say  him  nay.  This  may  be 
true,  but  if  it  is  true,  it  is  also  true  of 
Shylock.  Shylock,  when  he  asked  for  his 
pound  of  flesh,  asked  for  nothing  but  h's 
legal  rights,  he  asked  for  nothing  but 
the  tenor  of  his  bond. 

Humanity  shudders,  even  at  this  late 
day,  at  the  mention  of  the  name.  The 
name  of  Shylock  and  the  name  of  Markle 
will  be  synonomous  for  generations  to 
come,  for  he,  too,  asked  for  his  pound  of 
flesh.  It  was  no  concern  of  his  what  be- 
came of  the  poor  evicted  miners.  He 
could  well  cry  out  with  Cain,  ‘‘Am  I my 
brother's  keeper?” 

Markle  deceives  none  but  himself  when 
he  thinks  he  has  persuaded  the  public 
that  the  evictions  at  Jeddo  were  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  possession  of  the  tene- 
ments. It  was  contemplated  to  strike 
terror  to  the  hearts  of  the  remaining  ten- 
ants and  employes.  The  tenure  at  this 
place  is  the  worst  the  world  knows  today. 
Even  poor  down-trodden  Ireland  has  no 
such  tenure  to  govern  it  as  the  Mark’e 
tenure  at  will.  Mr.  Markle  branded  Jim- 
mie Gallagher  and  the  rest  of  these 
evicted  men  as  criminals,  but  has  not 
produced  one  bit  of  evidence  to  show  that 
any  of  these  men  ever  committed  a crimi- 
nal or  unlawful  act.  Mr.  Markle  said  his 
men  repudiated  the  agreement  to  arbi- 
trate. From  the  evidence  berore  the  com- 
mission, did  they  not  enter  into  th's 
agreement  under  protest;  did  they  net 
say  they  did  not  know  what  they  were 
signing?  Mr.  Markle  does  not  produce  to 
this  commission  a single  copy  of  this 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


agreement  with  the  signature  of  any  of 
his  employes.  Why  does  not  Markle  come 
before  the  commission  and  render  his  tes- 
timony? Every  scintilla  of  evidence  pro- 
duced before  this  commission  by  the 
miners  stands  uncontradicted.  The  em- 
ployes in  1900  said  they  would  submit 
their  grievances  to  arbitration,  but  it 
was  Markle  who  refused  to  keep  to  his 
agreement.  Oh,  the  hearts  of  Markle, 
Baer,  et  al.,  are  in  sympathy  for  the 
poor,  outraged  non-union  miner!  Like 
unto  the  tears  of  the  crocodile  when  lur- 
ing its  victims  on  to  destruction,  they  use 
them  for  their  own  selfish  ends,  as  a 
weapon  to  destroy  the  miners’  union,  and 
in  destroying  that,  destroy  the  non-union 
man  himself. 

It  is  a striking  fact  that  none  of  the 
employes  of  the  Upper  Lehigh  Coal  com- 
pany appeared  before  this  commission  to 
file  complaint.  Nor  the  employes  of  M. 
S.  Kemmerer  & Co.,  the  employes  of  C. 
M.  Dodson  & Co.,  at  Beaver  Brook,  or 
the  employes  of  the  Buck  Mountain  Coal 
company.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Leis- 
enring,  of  Upper  Lehigh,  shows  that 
where  the  company  treats  the  men  de- 
cently the  men  invariably  reciprocate. 
In  all  the  years  since  1836,  when  the  Up- 
per Lehigh  Coal  company  began  to  ship 
coal,  up  to  the  present  time,  there  never 
was  any  grievance  existing  between  the 
employes  and  this  company  that  was 
not  in  some  way  adjusted.  Even  in  the 
recent  strike  Mr.  Leisenring,  in  his  testi- 
mony, when  asked  as  to  the  prevailing 
conditions  said  they  were  by-gones,  they 
were  past  and  now  should  be  forgotten. 
No  discrimination  against  old  and  faith- 
ful employes.  The  same  can  be  said  oi 
M.  S.  Kemmerer  & Co.  and  the  Dodson 
Coal  company,  where  E.  L.  Bullock  is 
superintendent. 

The  coal  companies  made  a strenuous 
effort  to  show  that  the  miners  were  re- 
stricting the  output  of  coal  since  tha 
strike.  This  was  done  for  the  purpose  of 
turning  public  sentiment  against  the 
miners.  They  endeavored  to  show  that 
regardless  of  the  public  necessity,  in  the 
midst  of  winter,  the  miners  would  rather 
go  on  a carousal  than  work.  From  the 
overwhelming  preponderance  of  evidence 
in  this  case  it  is  shown  without  contra- 
diction that  the  miners  could  not  secure 
sufficient  cars  to  make  anything  like  a 
fair  day’s  wages,  and  when  cars  were 
given  the  non-union  men  and  relatives 
of  the  bosses  received  the  greater  share. 

Superintendent  Phillips,  of  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western,  said 
that  the  miners,  notwithstanding  a ten 
per  cent,  increase  in  wages,  failed  to 
earn  as  muc.v  as  in  the  previous  year. 
In  contradiction  to  this  is  the  statement 
of  the  president  of  the  same  company 
saying  that  the  mine;  s earned  fully  thirty 
per  cent,  more  than  in  any  previous 
years,  showing  that  the  output  had  been 
materially  increased.  Who  are  we  to  be- 
lieve, the  superintendent  who  speaks  from 
memory,  or  the  president,  who  speaks  ad- 
visedly from  data  before  him?  To  grant 
an  eight-hour  day  would  not  in  any  man- 
ner restrict  the  output  per  year,  nor  in 
any  manner  interfere  with  the  public 
rights,  as  it  would  still  leave  on  the 
highest  time  worked  in  the  period  of  five 
yars  last  mentioned,  which  was  in  1895, 
182  days,  it  would  still  leave  72  days  of 
unnecessary  idleness. 

Eight  Hour  Day  Law. 

Especially  do  we  ask.  the  eight-hour  day 
in  the  interest  of  the  little  children  who 
are  employed  around  the  mines  and 
breakers.  Many  of  these  little  children 


207 


have  to  support  widowed  mothers  and  lit- 
tle orphan  brothers  and  sisters,  and,  with 
the  long  hours  now  in  vogue,  have  no 
time  to  acquire  education  of  any  kind. 
Educate  the  children  and  you  have  better 
citizens  and  better  workmen  as  educa- 
tion increases  the  efficiency  of  a work- 
man. Intelligence  improves  even  the  com- 
mon laborer  working  in  the  streets. 

On  the  weighing  of  coal  we  ask  that  a 
ton  be  fixed  at  2,240  pounds.  This  we  think 
is  but  just  to  the  miner  with  a minimum 
of  60  cents  per  ton  and  differentiate  as 
now  on  account  of  softness  or  nardness 
of  the  vein,  or  impurities;  that  docking 
shall  be  recognized  with  the  right  of  the 
■miners  to  employ  a check  docking  boss. 
That  in  all  mines  where  coal  is  loaded 
out  as  it  is  mined,  coal  shall  be  paid 
for  by  the  ton,  and  in  all  mines  or  parts 
of  mines  where  chambers  are  worked 
at  what  is  known  in  mining  as  full,  where 
manways  are  carried  and  the  coal  al- 
lowed to  remain  in  the  breast  until  fin- 
ished, shall  be  paid  for  by  the  yard. 

The  weighing  of  coal  would  do  away 
with  the  question  of  topping,  size  of  car, 
and  docking  for  weight.  In  collieries 
where  the  coal  is  now  weighed,  there  is 
no  difficulty  and  no  complaint  is  made 
so  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  by  either 
the  miners  or  the  operators.  The  miners 
are  unanimous  for  the  weighing  of  coal 
wherever  it  can  be  done. 

In  the  statement  filed  on  behalf  of  the 
non-union  mine  workers  their  first  claim 
is  for  an  increase  of  20  per  cent. ; their 
second  for  weighing  coal.  These  non- 
union men  are  allies  of  the  operators,  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind. 

The  non-union  man  came  in  for  an 
unsparing  excoriation  at  the  hands  of 
Mr.  McCarthy.  They  would  be  treated 
like  all  other  traitors,  he  said,  when 
their  usefulness  to  their  masters  is 
gone.  They  will  be  despised  by  all. 

Mr.  McCarthy  later,  however,  said  he 
believed  the  non-union  man  would 
eventually  join  the  union,  and  that  the 
union  man  will  receive  him  with  open 
arms. 

The  operator,  Mr.  McCarthy  said,  is 
not  the  bad,  heartless  man  he  is  some 
times  pictured. 

“When  he  sits  in  his  slippers,”  said 
Mr.  McCarthy,  "comfortably  ensconced 
in  his  library,  looking  in  at  the  cheery 
fire  in  his  grate,  he  does  not  see  the 
blood  stains  on  the  coal  that  comes 
from  the  cut  and  gashed  hands  of  his 
workmen.  He  may  claim  to  operate  his 
mines  under  divine  right.  That  may  be 
questioned.  I do  not  believe  the  ope- 
rator knows  of  the  ills  of  his  work- 
man. His  greatest  offense  is  that  he  is 
derelict  in  the  duty  of  finding  out  what 
the  workmen’s  conditions  really  are.” 

Mr.  McCarthy  was  followed  by  Henry 
Demorest  Lloyd,  the  eminent  sociol- 
ogist, who  has  been  of  invaluable  aid 
to  the  miners  as  an  adviser  during  the 
whole  course  of  the  hearings.  Mr. 
Lloyd  dealt  exclusively  with  the  sub- 
ject of  collective  bargaining.  He  said, 
in  substance: 

Mr.  Lloyd’s  Address. 

The  miners  want  more  than  the  mere 
recognition  of  the  union.  They  want  an 
agreement  for  the  negotiation  of  con- 
tracts and  a settlement  of  grievances 
with  provision  for  arbitration,  if  neces- 
sary. Arrangements  of  this  kind  are  ev 


208 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


ery  year  becoming  more  common  in  Eu- 
rope and  this  country.  This  voluntary 
system  and  the  compulsory  arbitration 
of  New  Zealand  are  twin  brothers  trav- 
eling by  converging  paths  toward  the 
same  goal — industrial  peace.  The  moment 
the  award  is  made,  there  will  arise  ques- 
tions between  the  mine  owners  and  the 
men  as  to  its  interpretation  and  its  scope. 
There  are  hundreds  of  sleeping  dogs  in 
the  relations  of  the  operators  to  the 
miners  in  the  anthracite  field  and  we  do 
not  know  how  long  they  will  lie.  Some 
of  the  operators  claim  the  right  to  refuse 
work  to  a man  for  being  “a  gross  agita- 
tor,” and  they  claim  also  the  right  to  de- 
fine to  suit  themselves  what  constitutes 
a gross  agitator.  The  most  precious  pow- 
er of  all  for  the  pacification  of  industry, 
the  power  to  prevent  disputes  from  be- 
ginning, will  be  absent  unless  the  com 
mission  exercises  the  power  it  has  to  pro- 
vide a "permanent'’  remedy.  Unless  per- 
manent methods  of  adjusting  such  ques- 
tions as  they  arise  long  after  this  com- 
mission has  ceased  to  exist,  can  be  found, 
the  country  may  find  itself  at  any  mo 
ment  threatened  again  with  the  agony 
from  which  it  thought  it  had  escaped 
through  the  intervention  or  the  president. 
There  are  probably  not  half  a dozen  trade 
unions  in  the  world  which  coulu  stand 
without  ruin  the  expense  of  such  an  ar- 
bitration as  that  which  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  are  glad  and  proud 
to  have  had  accorded  to  them — perhaps 
there  is  not  another  one. 

The  Trade  Agreement. 

"The  trade  agreement  is  the  most  mod- 
ern and  the  most  important  development 
in  the  methods  of  industrial  peace  hero 
or  in  Europe.”  A review  was  given  by 
Mr.  Uloyd  of  the  results  in  Great  Britain 
of  this  method  of  making  trade  contracts 
between  capital  and  labor.  In  one  trade, 
a period  of  150  years  of  unbroken  mur- 
ders, riots,  larceny,  machine  breaking 
and  strikes  was  brought  to  an  end  in  this 
way. 

In  America  these  agreements  are  be- 
coming more  and  more  common.  Con 
spicuous  examples  of  tnelr  success  are 
shown  in  the  foundry  trade,  the  printing 
business,  ’longshoremen  and  others.  The 
testimony  of  the  employers  is  practically 
unanimous  that  strikes  have  been  stopped, 
discipline  has  been  restored  among  the 
men  and  equality  of  competition  given 
to  the  masters,  business  security  in- 
creased by  release  from  the  danger  of 
labor  troubles.  The  unions  have  been 
faithful  in  keeping  their  contracts  and 
moderate  in  their  demands.  A better 
class  of  leaders  is  pushing  to  the  front. 
In  the  bituminous  coal  industry  the  an- 
nual joint  inter-state  conference  of  op- 
erators and  miners  has  just  for  the  sixth 
year  in  succession,  settled  all  the  differ- 
ence between  labor  and  capital.  During 
the  year  1901,  there  were  two  hundred 
disputes  settled  in  Illinois.  SO  per  cent,  of 
these  were  against  the  workingmen,  but 
were  all  obeyed. 

There  has  been  no  mine  strike  of  any 
Importance  since  these  relations  of  nego- 
tiation and  arbitration  were  established, 
where  the  arrangement  prevailed,  but 
there  have  been  very  serious  strikes  else- 
where. Wages  have  been  increased, 
hours  reduced,  the  number  of  children  in 
the  mines  lessened,  better  mining  laws 
enacted,  and  the  existing  laws  better  en- 
forced. Neither  the  president  nor  the 
national  board  ever  ordered  a strike.  In 
case  of  dispute,  the  mines  must  be  kept 
open  and  the  miners  at  work. 


For  the  second  time  in  the  six  years,  a 
fortnights'  conference  of  both  sides  in  one 
room  has  given  the  miners  an  increase  of 
twenty  millions  of  dollars,  and  never  a 
shot  fired  nor  a dying  woman  evicted. 

Does  Not  Affect  Non-union  Men. 

The  trade  agreement  need  not,  and  does 
not,  interefere  with  the  employment  of 
non-union  men.  The  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America  has  never  gone  cn  a strike 
against  the  emplojment  of  non-union 
men.  The  easiest  objection  of  all  to  meet 
is  that  a monopoly  of  labor  would  be 
created  by  recognizing  the  union.  There 
can  be  no  monopoly  if  non-union  men,  as 
well  as  union  men,  are  allowed  to  wo  k 
side  by  side.  Your  award,  by  fixing  the 
terms  of  employment,  will  remove  the 
special  cause  of  anger  and  enmity.  It  is 
not  the  non-union  man  the  unionist  fears, 
but  the  “scab,”  the  strike-breaker  by 
trade,  who  lives  by  getting  odd  jobs  cf 
industrial  assassination  at  high  wages, 
and  loafs  between  whiles,  on  the  theory 
that  it  is  better  to  have  loafed  and  lost 
than  never  to  have  loafed  at  all.  There 
are  men  among  the  capitalists  who  do  not 
care  to  joint  the  capitalists’  union— the 
trusts.  Why  are  there  no  distinguished 
divines,  presidents  of  universities,  great 
statesmen,  to  cry  aloud  over  the  denial 
by  the  capitalistic  union  of  “his  sacred 
right  to  work”  to  the  capitalistic  “scab?” 

The  trade  agreement  has  put  an  end  to 
sympathetic  strikes  and  has  created  in 
their  place  the  novel  institution  of  sympa- 
thetic arbitration.  The  typographical 
union  of  Chicago  uses  its  power  to  ob- 
tain for  weaker  unions  the  same  right  of 
arbitration  it  has  won  for  itself.  When 
the  masters  in  this  business— the  ex-mas- 
ters—make  contracts  with  other  capital- 
ists, they  insist  on  full  notice,  represen- 
tation, consideration,  and  they  never 
dream  of  being  allowed  to  manage  more 
than  their  side  of  the  bargain.  They  who 
insist  on  all  this  for  themselves,  face 
about  and  make  arrangements  with  the 
miner,  in  which  they  refuse  him  every 
right  of  negotiation  and  representation 
they  claim  for  themselves.  And  these 
arrangements,  which  they  would  repu- 
diate if  offered  to  them  cney  ask  him  to 
call  a contract.  Hypocrisy  could  go  no 
further.  It  is  not  even  gentlemanly.  Our 
labor  organizations,  with  their  referen- 
dum. initiative,  voting  by  mail,  strict 
majority  rule,  with  their  strikes  to  en- 
force the  laws,  are  far  more  democratic 
in  their  self-government  than  the 
churches,  the  political  parties — infinitely 
more  so  than  the  joint  stock  companies. 

The  violence  that  has  been  proved — 
proved,  no  charged— we  claim  as  part  of 
our  case.  A tally  of  twenty-one  murders 
was  paraded  before  the  president  and  the 
country  by  the  coal  roads.  Of  nineteen  of 
these  twenty-one,  not  a word  has  been 
heard  in  the  testimony.  They  must  have 
been  stuffed  figures,  like  those  of  which 
some  corporation  statements  are  made. 
But  what  violence  there  was.  we  charge 
in  the  gross  and  main  upon  those  who 
held  in  their  hands  the  control  of  the 
livelihood  of  the  whole  population,  and 
refused  to  negotiate  or  reason  with  them. 
The  denial  of  arbitration,  the  cruel  re- 
ference of  the  whole  people  to  starvation 
as  the  judge,  was  itself  a monstrous  act 
of  violence.  We  ciaim  as  part  of  our  case 
the  instant  hush  of  peace  that  succeeded 
when  these  same  people  were  able  to  get 
the  work  and  the  “reasoning  together." 
for  which  they  were  clamoring.  We 
claim  as  part  of  our  case,  with  regard  to 
violence,  the  calm  which  prevailed  among 


the  men  of  precisely  the  same  mixture  of 
nationalities — the  miners  of  Illinois,  Ohio 
and  Western  Pennsylvania — during  the 
same  months.  The  situation  of  these  two 
— the  anthracite  and  the  bituminous 
miners — was  different  in  only  one  great 
particular.  The  equality  of  the  one  in 
making  of  the  bargains  by  which  he 
lived  was  recognized— that  of  the  other 
was  denied. 

Those  strikes,  scores,  hundreds  of  little 
strikes  since  1900,  we  claim  as  part  of  our 
case  for  the  recognition  of  the  union. 
Their  cause  was  not  too  much,  but  tco 
little  union.  These  operators  would  not 
deal  with  the  power  to  which  these 
miners  had  delegated  their  allegiance — 
the  United  Mine  Worers  of  America— 
who  would  have  kept  the  miners  at  work. 
The  operators  could  have  had  the  per- 
fect order  that  prevailed  at  the  same 
time  in  the  bituminous  field,  on  the  same 
terms.  The  anthracite  miners  are  willing 
to  be  disciplined  by  a power  which  exists 
by  the  joint  agreement  of  the  operators 
and  themselves.  They  are  not  willing  to 
be  disciplined  by  the  operators  alone. 

The  Business  Proposition. 

The  greatest  business  proposition  be- 
fore the  owners  of  the  stocks  and  bonds 
of  the  anthracite  coal  roads  today  is 
whether  their  managers  will  be  statesmen 
enough  to  turn  to  their  service  that 
power  of  coalescence  which  made  their 
people  one  during  the  last  strike.  A 
mighty  stream  of  loyalty  to  each  other 
and  their  leaders  Rows  here.  That  stream 
can  be  used  to  generate  a vast  force  fer 
the  successful  management  of  this  in- 
dustry. However  soft  human  flesh  is,  it 
will  strike  fire  when  it  is  struck.  The 
greatest  social  fact  of  our  day  is  that 
that  instinctive  universal  spirit  of  demo- 
cracy which  has  written  so  much  history 
in  government,  is  now  making  history  in 
industry. 

The  strike  of  last  summer  was  the 
Waterloo  of  capitalistic  absolutism  in 
this  country.  It  broke  down  as  mer- 
chant. miner,  diplomatist,  profit-maker. 
Organized  labor  never  did  civilization  a 
greater  service  than  when  it  whipped  this 
master  to  a finish  and  settled— let  it  be 
hoped,  for  the  third  and  last  time  in 
America — that  the  only  business  in  wh'ch 
there  is  only  one  master  is  s avery.  and 
that  in  free  business  there  are  as  many 
masters  as  there  are  parties.  Each  one 
is  master  of  himself  and  no  one  else. 
Thanks  to  the  utter  incompetence  of 
these  antediluvian  captains  of  industry, 
who  walk  on  Market  street,  on  Wa  1 
street,  as  if  it  were  Mount  Ararat  and 
they  were  fresh  from  the  Ark.  the  sup- 
ply of  fire  in  our  age  of  fire  has  been  so 
disturbed  that  at  least  two  years  must 
pass  before  it  becomes  normal.  These 
miners  offer— they  have  actually  begged 
—to  be  allowed  to  become  guarantors  of 
each  other  in  discipline,  production,  con- 
tract. The  same  miners  who  now  scheme 
how  to  send  out  the  largest  amount  of 
rock  and  slate  with  their  coal— according 
to  their  masters— can  be  converted  into 
mutual  insurers  of  the  purity  of  their 
coal,  if  you  will  give  them  mutuality  rf 
interest. 

We  are  not  asking  for  favors,  but  for 
justice.  We  acknowledge  the  supeib 
sense  of  justice  in  the  American  people 
which  gave  us  this  arbitration,  this  ex- 
traordinary effort  of  industrial  justice. 
We  acknowledge  it.  but  we  are  not  grate- 
ful for  it.  We  have  won  tne  right  to  this 
justice,  this  representation  in  our  bar- 
gains, sacrifice  and  struggle  which 
whitened  the  faces  of  a whole  people  and 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


209 


shortened  thousands  of  lives.  But  we  are 
grateful  that  we  live  in  an  age  where 
justice  is  not  denied  to  those  strong 
enough  to  get  it.  It  is  something  that 
our  civilization  has  advanced  so  far  as 
that. 

Judge  Gray’s  Question. 

When  Mr.  Lloyd  made  reference  to 
the  non-union  strike-breaker,  he  was 
interrupted  by  Judge  Gray  with  some 
interrogations  as  to  his  views  on  the 
question  of  the  right  of  a laborer  to 
labor  without  let  or  hindrance  from  a 
union  or  any  other  agency. 

Mr.  Lloyd  was  reading,  as  follows: 
“During  the  strike  in  the  anthracite 
region,  many  non-union  men  went  out 
with  the  union  men.  They  received  the 
same  strike  benefits,  as  often  happens 
in  cases  of  strikes;  they  were  invited 
into  the  meetings  to  decide  whether  the 
strike  should  be  discontinued.  There 
are  men  among  the  capitalists  who  do 
not  care  to  join  the  capitalists’  trade 
unions,  the  trusts. 

“Why  are  there  no  distinguished  di- 
vines, presidents  of  universities,  great 
statesmen,  to  cry  aloud  in  the  public 
places  over  the  denial  by  the  capital- 
istic unions  of  the  sacred  right  to  work 
of  these  capitalistic  scabs?  Some  of  the 
most  interesting  results  of  the  system 
of  agreements  are  its  by-products — ” 
“Mr.  Lloyd,”  said  Chairman  Gray,  in- 
terrupting, “while  you  are  on  that  in- 
teresting subject,  and  at  that  point  as 
to  the  non-union  man,  and  the  one  you 
characterize  as  a strike-breaker,  who 
loafs  in  between  times,  what  have  you 
to  say  of  those  who,  being  non-union 
men,  refuse  to  desist  from  work,  who 
prefer  to  continue  at  work  , through  the 
strike,  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  that 
they  suppose  they  have  to  do  so— those 
who  are  not  loafers  between  times?” 

“Of  course,  in  doing  that  they  are 
strictly  within  their  legal  rights,”  said 
Mr.  Lloyd,  “but  to  me  they  seem  to 
violate  a moral  duty  of  the  highest 
sanctity,  which  is  that  a man  must  do 
what  he  can  to  help  along  a necessary 
struggle  for  the  elevation  of  his  own 
class  and  of  society  at  large.” 

The  Chairman— “Well,  are  such  men 
protected  by  the  union — those  who  pre- 
fer to  continue  at  work,  in  the  exercise 
of  what  you  concede  to  be  their  right 
to  do  so?” 

Mr.  Lloyd — “The  union  certainly  with- 
draws no  legal  protection  from  them. 
They  are  not  protected  by  the  union 
from  being  visited  with  that  obloquy 
which  properly  falls  upon  a man  who 
will  not  join  in  a common  effort  for  the 
common  good.  I should  class  this  man 
precisely  with  the  loyalist  in  the 
American  Revolution.  I certainly  char- 
acterize the  strike  as  an  industrial  war, 
as  an  incident  in  a great  uprising.” 

Industrial  War. 

The  Chairman — “Calling  it  an  indus- 
trial war  and  using  that  figure  of 
speech,  you  do  not  quite  carry  it,  do 
you,  to  the  extent  of  likening  it  in  all 
respects  to  a war?” 

Mr.  Lloyd — “No,  indeed.” 

The  Chairman — “In  our  theory,  there 


is  only  one  war-making  power  and  that 
is  the  great  Union  represented  by  the 
government  of  society,  and  they  toler- 
ate no  wars -strictly  wars— inside  of 
their  influence  or  sphere.  We  may,  for 
the  sake  of  rhetoric  or  analogy,  speak 
of  a war,  out  there  can  be  no  war  tol- 
erated, in  the  pruper  sense,  within  any 
peaceful  community  governed  by  law.” 

Mr.  Lloyd — ‘There  would  be  no  ne- 
cessity even  for  the  pictorial  use  of  the 
word  ‘war’  if  society  would  only  organ- 
ize this  sphere  oi  conflict  so  that  p:oper 
methods  of  settlement  could  be  reached. 
The  world  in  which  strikes  occur,  which 
are  called  war,  is  a world  which  soci- 
ety at  large  has  so  far  refused  to  or- 
ganize, except  in  the  case  of  New  Zea- 
land. I apprehend  that  one  of  the  great- 
est results  to  be  hoped  for  from  this 
commission  is  that  you  will  push  for- 
ward one  step  farther  the  evolution  of 
the  development  of  some  organic  au- 
thority in  that  field  of  conflict.” 

The  Chairman — “Pardon  me  for  in- 
terrupting you,  Mr.  Lloyd,  but  I wanted 
to  hear  you  on  that  point,  which  I was 
much  interested  in.” 

Mr.  Lloyd’s  address  occupied  an  hour 
and  a quarter.  Mr.  Brumm  followed 
him,  speaking  from  4 o’clock  until  5.30. 
He  dealt  with  the  miners’  demands  gen- 
erally and  paid  particular  attention  to 
the  testimony  bearing  on  conditions  in 
the  Schuylkill  region.  He  said,  in  part: 

Ever  since  the  coal  companies  destroyed 
the  Workmen’s  Beneficial  association, 
twenty-five  years  ago,  they  have  been 
denying  their  workmen  the  right  to  be 
represented  by  men  of  their  own  choos- 
ing. 

President  Baer  is  only  the  representa- 
tive of  artificial  creatures — stockholders. 
Mitchell  represents  creatures  of  God. 
The  controlling  interest  in  the  coal  mines 
is  represented  by  the  Morgans,  the  Drex- 
els  and  the  like.  They  represent  the  capi- 
tal of  the  owners.  Mitchell  represents, 
the  capital  of  147,000  of  the  laboring  men, 
who  are  necessary  to  the  operation  of 
these  mines. 

They  say  peace  reigned  for  twenty-five 
years  in  the  coal  region,  prior  to  the 
coming  of  the  union.  Yes,  peace  reigned 
as  it  does  with  slaves  under  the  lash  of 
the  master.  Peace  reigned  in  France  for 
twenty-five  years  prior  to  the  reign  of 
terror.  Thank  God,  Mitchell  came  out  of 
the  West. 

I have  witnessed  every  strike  that  has 
taken  place  in  the  anthracite  region. 
When  labor  was  disorganized,  as  in  1877, 
there  was  riot  and  bloodshed  every  day 
throughout  the  whole  affected  region. 
We  have  just  ended  a six  months’  strike 
under  organized  labor,  and  it  was  at- 
tended with  comparatively  little  disor- 
der. If  there  must  be  strikes,  it  it  nc  t 
preferable  that  the  strikers  should  be  or- 
ganized? 

You  and  I,  when  we  quarrel,  are  not 
the  qnes  to  settle  our  dispute.  The  czar 
of  Russia  suggested  the  Hague  tribunal, 
yet  the  “Big  Four”  of  the  coal  world  say, 
“We  will  not  arbitrate.” 

Trusts  are  here  to  stay.  Combinations 
of  capital  are  a necessity.  Labor  unions 
are  here;  they  are  necessary,  and  they 
have  come  to  stay.  If  there  is  to  be  a 
combination  of  capital,  you  must  permit 
of  a combination  of  labor. 

Twenty-five  years  ago,  most  of  the 
miners  were  English,  Irish,  German  and 


Welsh.  There  were  few  non-English- 
speaking  miners  in  the  region.  The 
mines  are  now  worked  largely  by  Ital- 
ians, Slavs,  Turks,  Armenians.  They 
have  driven  out  the  better  class  of  mineis 
and  occupy  the  whole  region.  They,  like 
their  predecessors,  refuse  any  longer  to 
bow  submissive  to  the  yoke  of  the  men 
who  brought  them  in  here,  under  the 
padrone  system,  to  force  out  the  intelli- 
gent, independent  Anglo-Saxon,  Teuton 
and  Celt.  The  operator  is  now  at  the  end 
of  his  tether.  He  can't  get  the  Hottentot 
to  come  here,  because  it  is  too  cold.  The 
Eskimo  won’t  come,  beacuse  it  Is  tco 
hot.  They  can’t  get  the  Chinamen,  be- 
cause the  law  prohibits  them. 

It  came  ro  a pass  where  they  had  to 
reckon  with  their  men.  They  thought  to 
repeat  the  success  of  a quarter  of  a cen- 
tury ago,  when  the  “W.  B.  A”  was 
wrecked.  But  they  could  not  do  it.  They 
would  not  arbitrate.  They  were  forced 
before  this  commission.  They  were 
forced  here  by  the  command  of  public 
opinion— they  were  forced  here  by  the 
command  of  our  president— the  president 
of  the  United  States— who  they  knew 
could  -wrest  the  mines  from  them,  with 
the  assent  of  congress,  if  they  did  not 
obey  the  demand  of  the  public. 

Refuse  to  Arbitrate. 

You  [turning  towards  Mr.  Baer]  re- 
fused to  arbitrate.  You  said  there  was 
nothing  to  arbitrate.  All  you  wanted  was 
to  be  let  alone.  I have  never  known 
a criminal  yet  that  didn’t  want 
to  be  let  alone.  (Laughter.)  I do  not 
want  to  say  that  the  operators  are  crimi- 
nals, although  they  have  said  we  are 
criminals.  President  Baer,  it  will  be  re- 
membered, alleged  the  miners  committed 
twenty-one  murders . 

“Wasn’t  that  a lie?”  angrily  demand- 
ed Mr.  Baer  jumping  to  his  feet.  “Did 
I say  it?  Didn’t  I deny  it?” 

Mr.  Brumm  was  so  completely  non- 
plussed by  the  interruption  that  he 
could  only  stammer  something  to  the 
effect  that  it  was.  true  that  Mr.  Baer 
had  denied  it. 

“You  knew  I denied  it,”  said  Mr. 
Baer.  “Why  do  you  repeat  it?” 

“But  that  was  after  this,”  said  Mr. 
Brumm,  emerging  from  the  circle  of 
miners  representatives  who  rushed  to 
his  aid  with  suggestions  for  exonerat- 
ing himself.  “You  did  not  deny  it  until 
the  eleventh  hour.” 

Mr.  Wolverton  remarked  that  it  was 
denied  at  the  first  opportunity,  which 
was  at  the  time  the  Reading  was  pre- 
senting its  case. 

Vindication  of  Mr.  Baer. 

Judge  Gray  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  an  investigation  of  the  sten- 
ographic record  of  the  White  House 
meeting  had  shown  that  Mr.  Baer  did 
not  make  the  accusation  in  question. 

“You  say,”  said  Mr.  Baer  to  Mr. 
Brumm,  “that  I did  not  deny  it  until 
the  eleventh  hour.” 

“I  say,”  replied  Mr.  Brumm,  "that 
you  did  not  deny  it  until  quite  recent- 
ly.” 

"Oh.”  said  Mr.  Baer  turning  about 
to  sit  down. 

“If  you  had  waited,  you  wouldn’t 
have  asked  the  question,”  said  Mr. 
Brumm  as  he  was  about  to  proceed 
with  the  reading  of  his  address. 


210 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


"What  is  the  point  you  want  to  make 
on  rne?”  asked  Mr.  Baer  with  a puz- 
zled expression.  "Is  it  that  I did  say 
it?” 

“No,  no,”  said  Mr.  Brumm.  "I  say 
you  didn’t  say  it.” 

“That's  different,”  said  Mr.  Baer,  sit- 
ting down. 

“I  do  criticize  you,”  said  Mr.  Brumm, 
grown  suddenly  firm  of  voice  again. 
“I  criticize  you  for  not  denying  it 
when  it  wras  published  broadcast  in 
the  newspapers.” 

Judge  Gray  suggested  that  Mr. 
Brumm  proceed  with  his  address,  re- 
minding him  that  the  time  for  the 
address  was  limited. 

"Give  us  protection  and  we’ll  give 
you  coal’  was  your  battle  cry,”  Mr. 
Brumm  went  on  to  say  addressing  the 
commission  through  an  imaginary 
operator.  "You  said  ‘give  us  protec- 
tion and  we’ll  give  you  coal.’  The 
more  protection  you  got  the  less  coal 
the  people  got. 

“You  refused  to  arbitrate,”  said  Mr. 
Brumm  still  addressing  the  imaginary 
operator  but  occasionally  turning  to- 
wards Mr.  Baer,  who  was  seated  near 
the  center  of  the  room.  "When  we 
asked  for  arbitration  you  said  ‘there 
is  nothing  to  arbitrate,’  and  in  the 


choice  language  of  the  pugilist  you 
declared  ‘we’ll  fight  it  out  to  a finish.’ 
You  refused  to  meet  the  miners  and 
you  refused  to  arbitrate.” 

“Will  you  let  me  interrupt  again?” 
said  Mr.  Baer  rising.  “Do  you  not 
know  that  we  did  meet?  Do  you  not 
know  Mr.  Mitchell  and  the  three  dis- 
trict presidents  met  with  us  for  two 
whole  davs?” 

"Yes  but — ” Mr.  Brumm  started  to 
explain. 

“Yes,  but  we  did  meet?”  interrupted 
Mr.  Baer. 

Mr.  Brumm’s  address  concluded  with 
a defense  of  the  miners  against  the 
charge  that  they  caused  a reign  of 
terror  during  the  strike.  It  was  re- 
markable, he  contended,  that  there  was 
so  little  disorder  considering  the  condi- 
tions. 

Case  of  “Jimmie”  Johns. 

Major  Warren,  of  counsel  for  the 
Erie,  filed  with  the  commission  an  affi- 
davit, by  Foreman  Seward  Button,  of 
the  Consolidated  colliery,  Moosic,  set- 
ting forth  that  the  discrimination  in 
favor  of  “Jimmie”  Johns,  as  alleged  by 
William  Atwell,  on  Thursday,  was  a 
necessary  discrimination,  if  it  could  be 


called  such,  and  was  done  with  the  ac- 
quiescence of  the  mine  workers’  local. 

Johns  was  working  in  a “wet”  place. 
It  was  an  expensive  place  to  work  be- 
cause of  the  allowances  that  had  to  be 
made  daily  for  bailing  water.  Tne 
company  was  anxious  to  have  the  place 
worked  out  as  quickly  as  possible,  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  the  longer  it  was 
in  operation  the  more  expense  it  en- 
tailed. The  miner  working  the  place 
■was  anxious  to  finish  it  up  because  of 
it  being  undesirable  to  work  in  water. 

Johns,  though  a non-union  man  had 
a union  laborer.  The  local  complained 
to  the  laborer  that  he  was  “scabbing" 
in  that  he  loaded  more  than  four  cars. 
The  union  also  sent  a committee  to 
protest  against  Johns  being  given  six 
cars  when  the  other  miners  were  not 
receiving  the  full  “shift.”  The  circum- 
stances were  explained  to  the  commit- 
tee, and  the  committee  told  the  fore- 
man it  would  no  longer  protest;  that  a 
man  who  worked  in  so  much  water  cer- 
tainly was  entitled  to  full  coal,  if  he 
could  possibly  get  it,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  economy  of  pushing  work  in  the 
wet  place.  William  Atwell,  the  witness 
of  Thursday,  was  chairman  of  this  ac- 
quiescent committee. 


Proceedings  of  Tuesday,  Peb.  IQ. 


[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Feb.  11.] 


Philadelphia,  Feb.  10. — Three  addresses 
were  listened  to  by  the  mine  strike  com- 
mission during  the  six  hours  of  today’s 
two  sessions.  John  T.  Lenahan  argued 
for  the  non-union  men;  James  H.  Tor- 
rey  made  a general  address  for  the  op- 
erators and  specifically  dealt  with  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  conditions.  Major 
Everett  Warren  also  dealt  with  general 
conditions  as  viewed  from  the  operators’ 
side,  and  particularly  dwelt  upon  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  the  companies  he  rep- 
resents, the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  company,  the  Pennsylvania 
company,  the  Hillside  Coal  and  Iron 
company,  the  Temple  Iron  company  and 
the  Lehigh  Valley  Coal  company.  Mr. 
Lenahan  spoke  for  an  hour  and  a half, 
Mr.  Torrey  for  two  and  one-half  hours 
and  Mr.  Warren  for  two  hours. 

The  commissioners  gave  strict  atten- 
tion to  all  three  addresses,  and  there 
were  few  interruptions,  none  of  them  of 
any  particular  import.  Tne  audience 
was  the  largest  in  many  days,  a goodly 
portion  of  them  being  women. 


MR.  LENAHAN’S  REMARKS. 

Mr.  Lenahan  contended  at  the  outset 
that  the  rights  of  his  clients  were  the 
most  important  matter  entrusted  to  the 
consideration  of  the  commission.  These 
rights,  he  said,  were  above  the  matter 
of  wages  and  hours,  because  they  were 
the  rights  of  personal  liberty  and  the 
other  inalienable  rights  guaranteed  by 
the  constitution. 

In  his  usual  forcible  style,  Mr.  Lena- 
han reviewed  the  strike  “reign  of  ter- 


ror,” detailing  the  most  serious  of  the 
crimes,  and  striving  to  show  that  the 
union  was  responsible  for  them,  not 
only  indirectly,  because  of  it  being  re- 
sponsible for  the  strike,  but  directly, 
because  of  the  participation  in  these 
acts  of  members  of  the  union. 

Concluding  his  review  of  strike  vio- 
lence, Mr.  Lenahan  went  on  to  say: 

In  every  instance  where  the  identity  of 
a law  violator  was  uncovered,  the  crime 
was  brought  home  to  the  United  Mine 
Workers.  The  guilty  man  tvas  invariably 
a member  of  the  union.  Even  though 
the  union  should  claim  it  is  not  responsi- 
ble for  the  acts  of  these  individuals,  it 
can  not  deny  that  it  is  at  least  an  ac- 
complice after  the  fact  in  each  and  every 
instance,  by  reason  that  it  continued 
without  alteration  the  relations  it  had 
with  its  offending  member. 

The  union  stands  convicted  of  acts  that 
make  humanity  shudder.  All  the  refine- 
ments of  cruelty  were  resorted  to.  The 
calendar  of  crimes  made  up  of  the  vio- 
lence during  the  strike  of  1902  is  an  awful 
object  lesson  of  anarchy. 

The  union  seeks  to  minimize  this  vio- 
lence by  saying  an  abnormal  condition 
existed.  It  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  it 
its  remarkable  that  there  was  not  more 
violence  resulting  from  the  bitterness  en- 
gendered by  the  attempts  of  the  -com- 
panies to  fill  the  strikers'  places.  It  is 
also  asserted,  on  the  part  of  the  union, 
that  comparatively  speaking,  there  was 
less  violence  in  this  than  any  previous 
big  strike. 

The  record  of  thirty  years  discloses  no 
such  an  array  of  crime  during  a strike, 
long  or  short,  as  occurred  in  this  strike. 
Nowhere,  in  a previous  strike,  was  a 
man  successfully  charged  with  murder. 
In  no  previous  strike  was  there  the  dy- 


namiting, arson  and  the  hideous  crimes 
W’hich  marked  the  strike  of  1902. 

The  most  insidious  and  infamous  of 
crimes — the  boycott — is  not  only  not  de- 
nied by  the  union  but  defended  by  it. 
Not  only'  the  primary  but  the  secondaiy 
boycott  is  given  approval  by  act  if  not  by 
W’ord. 

There  might  be  some  chance  of  defend- 
ing the  boycott  when  leveled  against  the 
non-union  man,  and  confined  to  him:  but 
how  can  any  defense  be  offered  when 
that  boycott  is  extended  to  the  wives, 
children,  sisters  and  every  other  relative 
of  the  non-union  man? 

There  wms  a time  in  the  coal  regions 
when  the  main  qualifications  of  a school 
teacher  were  learning  and  probity.  A 
new  standard  of  qualifications  has  been 
set  up  since  the  coming  of  the  union.  Now 
the  school  teacher  may  not  be  employed 
unless  all  his  or  her  relatives,  by  blood 
or  marriage,  are  members  of  the  union. 
Maud  Leiser.  of  Mt.  Carmel,  had  a 
brother,  over  whom  neither  she  nor  her 
parents  had  any  control.  The  brother  re- 
fused to  quit  work  as  a fireman.  The  sis- 
ter was  dismissed  from  her  position  in 
the  school,  and  when  she  went  to  an  ad- 
joining town,  seeking  employment,  she 
was  met  by  the  awful  ogre— the  boycott. 

This  tribunal  should  not  only’  denounce 
the  illegal  boycott,  but  utter  a vigorous 
denunciation  of  the  union  for  countenanc- 
ing it. 

There  are  innumerable  instances  of 
members  of  the  union  conducting  boy- 
cotts and  participating  in  criminal  acts. 
There  are  proofs  that  the  union  as  a 
body  is  equally  guilty.  It  was  the  only 
body  interested  in  preventing  non-uni  n 
men  from  working,  and  practically  all 
the  violence  and  boycotting  was  conse- 
quent upon  efforts  to  prevent  these  men 
from  working.  Furthermore,  the  union 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


211 


never  raised  a hand  to  stay  this  violence. 
Some  proclamations  were  issued.  They 
were  ineffective,  but  they  were  again  is- 
sued. Though  proven  to  be  futile,  they 
were  iterated  and  reiterated.  , 

It  was  not  the  lowly  member  of  the 
union,  either,  who  was  guilty  of  offenses. 
Take  the  case  of  the  sub-district  chair- 
man in  Olyphant,  who  called  on  the  peo- 
ple to  refuse  to  worship  at  the  same  altar 
wiih  a man  who  chose  to  continue  at  his 
regular  employment.  This  was  a man  to 
whom  the  miners  were  supposed  to  look 
for  counsel  and  guidance. 

The  evidence  before  the  commission  fur- 
nishes overwhelming  proof  that  our 
clients  were  driven  out  of  the  mines  and 
prevented  from  working  by  the  use  of 
unlawful  force.  It  cannot  be  necessary 
for  us  to  discuss  at  length  the  self-evi- 
dent proposition  that  under  our  system  of 
law  every  man  is  guaranteed  the  right  to 
labor  when,  where  and  for  whom  he 
pleases,  without  interference  which 
amounts  to  the  use  of  force.  We  cannot 
find  that  this  proposition  has  met  with  a 
dissenting  voice,  either  in  judicial  de- 
cisions or  the  writings  of  persons  who 
could  be  regarded  as  authorities.  We 
present,  however,  a few  extracts  from 
judicial  opinions  and  others,  whose  words 
must  carry  weight,  to  further  enforce 
this  claim. 

Says  Stockton  Bates,  in  the  North 
American  Review  (Volume  160,  page,  372, 
1895):  “Of  the  total  working  population, 
probably  four-fifths  are  non-union  men. 
Have  these  four-fifths  no  rights?  If  non- 
union men  seek  the  employment  refused 
by  the  union  men,  and  are  willing  to 
accept  the  wages  which  these  refuse, 
what  right  has  the  minority  to  attempt, 
by  intimidation  and  force,  to  interfere 
with  them?  There  is  then  a conflict,  but 
this  conflict  is  not  between  the  laborer 
and  the  capitalist.  No,  this  conflict  is 
between  about  one-fifth  of  the  laboring 
population  organized  in  trade  unions,  and 
four-fifths  not  so  organized.  The  conflict 
is  between  union  and  non-union  men.  It 
is  the  non-union  men  of  whom  the  strikers 
are  in  fear.  These  are  the  people  to  be 
kept  from  employment  at  every  hazard. 
These  are  the  antagonists!  What  be- 
come of  the  fine  phrase  ‘The  injury  of 
one  is  the  concern  of  all?’  Is  its  mean- 
ing narrowed  and  restricted  to  the  few 
who  are  banded  together  in  the  unions? 
These  organizations  have  been  posing  as 
the  representatives  of  those  who  toil, 
whose  one  common  cause  is  the  ameliora- 
tion of  the  hard  lot  of  the  workingman. 
They  have  been  fighting  capital  indeed! 
WTho  are  the  ‘scabs  and  blacklegs?’ 
Workingmen — plain  non-union  working- 
men. These  are  the  men  who  are  per- 
suaded, intimidated,  even  beaten  into  in- 
sensibility if  they  dare  to  exercise  their 
inalienable  right  of  selling  their  labor  in 
the  highest'  market. 

“It  may  be  urged  that  the  elimination 
of  force  as  a means  of  compelling  the 
amelioration  of  the  laborer’s  condition 
would  defeat  the  purposes  of  organiza- 
tion. Such  a result  would  not  follow. 
Let  a new  Declaration  of  Independence 
be  made;  enact  laws  that  will  conserve 
every  man’s  right— his  inalienable  right— 
to  dispose  of  his  labor  upon  the  terms 
and  conditions  satisfactory  to  himself. 
Sweep  from  the  constitution  and  by-laws 
of  labor  unions  every  vestige  of  restric- 
tion and  brute  force.  Nothing  has  ever 
been  accomplished  vi  et  armis  but  ter- 
rorism, bloodshed  and  incalculable  loss. 
These  methods  must  be  relegated  to  a 
black  and  uninviting  past.” 

In  a vigorous  article  by  Archbishop 


John  Ireland  on  "Personal  Liberty  and 
Labor  Strikes,”  in  the  North  American 
Review  for  October,  1901,  page  415,  he 
discusses  the  whole  subject. 

Judicial  Decisions. 

Here  Mr.  Lenahan  quoted  in  its  en- 
tirety the  article  referred  to  and  fol- 
lowed it  up  with  citations  from  judicial 
decisions  bearing  on  the  same  subject, 
as  compiled  in  the  form  of  a brief  by 
his  colleague,  Joseph  O’Brien.  Then 
continuing,  he  said: 

If  this  is  the  law,  and  the  evidence 
shows  that  non-union  miners  were  de- 
prived by  force  of  their  right  to  work,  we 
submit  that  this  commission  should  an- 
nounce its  finding  on  this  branch  of  our 
case  in  terms  which  cannot  be  misunder- 
stood. This  is  an  opportunity  to  impress 
upon  the  laboring  classes  throughout  the 
country  the  one  great  lesson  of  the  rights 
which  the  law  guarantees  to  non-union 
workmen.  The  commission’s  decision  on 
this  subject  will  be  known  everywhere. 
It  will  reach  all  portions  of  the  laboring 
classes.  Among  them  are  many  foreign- 
ers and  others  so  lacking  in  intelligence 
and  education  that  perhaps  they  do  not 
know  even  this  much  about  our  law.  So- 
ciety owes  them  the  duty  of  awakening 
in  their  minds  the  knowledge  that  those 
whom  prejudice  teaches  them  to  hate 
have  rights  which  must  be  respected.  We 
would  hear  less  of  like  crimes  and  un- 
lawful violence  during  strikes  and  labor 
troubles  if  the  fact  were  known  that  this 
is  the  law.  and  that  under  our  system  the 
utmost  power  of  government  can  be  in- 
voked, and  will  be  used,  to  protect  the 
humblest  citizen  in  the  possession  of  this 
right. 

We  submit  that  nothing  could  justify 
a finding  by  this  commission  that  non- 
union miners  must  deal  with  their  em- 
ployers through  the  medium  of  the  union, 
or  be  subject  in  the  slightest  degree  to 
its  control  or  dictation. 

It  follows,  as  a necessary  conclusion, 
from  admitting  the  principle  that  non- 
union miners  must  be  permitted  to  work 
without  unlawful  interference  from  fel- 
low-workmen, that  they  must  not  be 
made  to  deal  with  theii  employers 
through  the  medium  of  the  union. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  law,  no  distinction 
can  exist  between  union  and  non-union 
laborers.  They  are  simply  fellow-servats 
of  a common  employer.  The  majority 
may  make  such  secret  agreements  among 
themselves  as  they  please,  but  such 
agreements  cannot  affect  the  rights  of 
the  minority,  no  matter  how  small  it 
may  be. 

Servants  Are  Individuals. 

There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  majority 
rule  among  fellow-workmen  in  a common 
employment.  It  is  the  admitted  right  of 
a majority  of  stockholders  in  a corpora- 
tion to  dictate  the  policy  of  the  com- 
pany, even  though  contrary  to  the 
wishes  of  some  stockholders,  who  might, 
thereby,  suffer  loss.  But  all  the  servants 
of  one  master  remain  individuals  under 
our  law  and  yield  nothing  of  their  rights 
to  a majority  of  their  co-employes.  Ilow 
then,  could  it  be  possible  for  this  com- 
mission to  admit  the  right  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  to  contract  on  behalf  of 
non-union  miners  with  a common  em- 
ployer? 

If  it  were  possible,  is  it  likely  that 
non-union  miners  would  receive  fair 
treatment  at  the  hands  of  those  embit- 
tered by  prejudice  and  anxious  to  monop- 
olize the  positions  they  hold?  As  is  well 


known,  there  are  diametrical  differences 
of  opinion  on  many  subjects  apparently 
affecting  their  common  interests,  between 
union  and  non-union  men  in  all  occupa- 
tions. The  rules  of  trades  unions  are 
framed  on  the  principle,  not  merely  of 
the  dictation  by  the  majority  to  the 
minority  among  fellow-employes  of  one 
employer,  but  of  such  dictation  by  the 
majority  of  all  workmen  engaged  in  a 
particular  occupation. 

The  freedom  of  the  individual  to  work 
only  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
interests  are  made  subservient  to  the 
supposed  good  of  the  greatest  number. 

We  agree  that  the  law  does  not  pro- 
hibit such  combinations  or  rules  when 
voluntarily  accepted.  What  we  deny  is 
that  any  workman  can  be  coerced  in'o 
accepting  them.  When  this  is  done, 
directly  or  indirectly,  he  is  deprived  of 
that  liberty  of  action  which  the  law1  guar- 
antees to  him. 

The  union  presents  as  one  of  its  essen- 
tial claims  before  this  commission  a de- 
mand that  the  mine  owners  shall  accept 
the  union  as  the  representative  of  the 
miners,  and  fix  the  rights  both  of  union 
and  non-union  miners  by  conceding  its 
demands.  We  deny  this  right,  and  earn- 
estly protest  that  it  could  not  be  con- 
ceded by  the  commission  w’ithout  a dis- 
tinct and  deliberate  violation  of  law  and 
the  constitution  of  the  land. 


MR.  TORREY’S  ARGUMENT. 

James  H.  Torrey,  of  Scranton,  fol- 
lowed Mr.  Lenahan  with  a general  ar- 
gument of  the  operators’  case.  He  be- 
gan at  11.30  o’clock  and  occupied  the 
remaining  hour  and  a half  of  the  morn- 
ing session  and  an  hour  and  a half  of 
the  afternoon  session.  He  spoke  sub- 
stantially as  follows: 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Com- 
mission: 

The  duty  has  been  assigned  me  of  pre- 
senting some  general  opening  argument 
for  the  operators  who  are  the  respondents 
in  this  case.  Permit  me,  at  the  outset,  on 
behalf  of  those  operators,  to  express  their 
profound  sensibility  of  the  industry,  pa- 
tience and  careful  consideration  which 
you  have  given  to  the  wearisome  and 
complex  questions  which  have  arisen  dur- 
ing the  hearings.  This,  perhaps,  was  no 
more  than  was  to  have  been  anticipated 
from  the  distinguished  character  of  il  e 
persons  whom  the  president  selected  to 
sit  upon  this  commission,  but  I am  very 
sure  that  neither  he  nor  any  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  commission  realized,  when  it 
was  appointed,  how  great  was  the  task 
which  it  had  undertaken  or  how  mani- 
fold and  involved  the  issues  which  would 
be  raised.  Speaking  for  the  counsel  rep- 
resenting the  operators,  I can  most  sin- 
cerely thank  the  chairman  and  the  dis- 
tinguished officer  who  presided  in  his 
absence,  for  the  dignity  and  courtesy  with 
which  the  difficult  duties  have  been  dis- 
charged, and  the  success  which  their 
character  and  conduct  has  secured  ii^  al- 
laying any  exhibitions  of  undue  partisan- 
ship or  intense  feeling  which  counsel 
might,  under  other  circumstances,  ha\  ■ 
been  tempted  to  display. 

This  inquiry  is  novel,  not  only  in  the 
history  of  this  country,  but  perhaps  the 
world.  The  numerous  interests,  the  deep 
underlying  principles,  and  the  immense 
civic  interests  involved  in  the  inquiry,  are 
such  as  to  impose  upon  all  who  are  con- 
nected with  it,  a feeling  of  responsibility 
approaching  to  solemnity.  I am  sure  that 
none  of  the  counsel  for  the  operators  are 


212 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


disposed  to  regard  this  inquiry  in  a tri- 
fling or  flippant  manner.  We  feel  that  in 
the  effort  to  introduce  testimony  aid 
crnstruct  arguments  bearing  upon  the  is- 
sues involved,  we  are  charged  with  a 
high  and  solemn  duty  not  only  to  our 
clients  but  to  the  entire  body  politic.  I 
do  not  consider  myself  by  peculiar  gifts 
or  by  special  education  competent,  even 
if  I regarded  it  as  pertinent  to  the  issues 
in  this  proceeding,  to  discuss  generally, 
and  upon  broad  lines,  the  relations  of 
capital  and  labor,  or  the  advantages  or 
evils  of  labor  unions  generally  considered. 
So  far  as  the  character,  aims  and  prin- 
ciples of  the  particular  organization  with 
reference  to  which  demands  are  made  in 
this  case,  are  involved  in  the  evidence 
before  the  commission,  I shall  feel  free 
to  speak.  Beyond  that  I have  no  brief, 
and  will  indulge  in  no  argument. 

Coal  Concentrated. 

The  anthracite  coal  of  this  country  is 
concentrated  in  a few  counties  of  Central 
and  Eastern  Pennsylvania.  It  is  a most 
valuable  product,  possessing  certain  pecu- 
liar qualities  which  give  it  special  pre- 
ference over  other  kinds  of  fuel  for  par- 
ticular purposes,  especially  for  domestic 
use.  Upon  the  sufficient  and  regular  sup- 
ply of  this  fuel,  the  great  mass  of  peo- 
ple of  the  Middle  and  Eastern  states  do, 
and  for  years  have,  depended  for  their 
protection  against  the  cold  of  winter,  and, 
to  a large  extent,  for  the  supply  of  power 
for  the  industries  which  support  their 
communities.  The  mining  of  this  coal 
was  begun  something  over  seventy  years 
ago,  and  has  steadily  increased  in  ex- 
tent and  importance  from  that  time  until 
the  present.  The  early  mining  was  com- 
paratively experimental  and  crude.  The 
more  accessible,  easily  mined  and  purer 
veins  were  first  selected,  and  the  mining 
was  done  by  crude  and  unscientific 
methods,  often  involving  very  great  waste 
in  the  product,  by  lack  of  system  ard 
forethought  in  the  manner  in  which  it 
was  taken  out.  Of  late  years,  the  indus- 
try has  become  more  difficult  and  expen- 
sive, by  reason  of  the  necessity  fcr  n i i g 
deeper  and  thinner  veins  and  contending 
with  the  many  obstacles  to  easy  mining. 

The  industry  differs  from  bituminous 
mining  in  many  respects,  among  which 
may  be  mentioned  the  quality  and  dis- 
tribution, the  anthracite  coal  being  found 
in  greatly  varying  conditions  in  a sing  e 
compact  territory,  while  the  bituminous 
coal  is  found  in  nearly  all  of  the  states 
and  territories  of  the  union.  It  differs 
greatly  in  the  value  of  the  coal  in  place 
and  as  measured  by  the  prices  for  coal 
lands  and  the  royalties  paid  for  ccal 
leased,  the  royalties  on  a few  tons  of 
anthracite  being  often  as  great  as  the 
price  of  an  entire  acre  of  bituminous  coal 
land.  The  capital  required  for  the  opera- 
tion of  the  anthracite  coal  mines  is  very 
great,  as  compared  with  that  of  bitu- 
minous. The  impurities  must  be  care- 
fully separated  from  the  anthracite  coal 
and  it  must  be  screened  into  different 
sizes  to  meet  the  different  requirements 
of  the  market,  while  the  bituminous  coal 
is  sent  to  market  practically  as  taken 
from  the  mines.  An  almost  infinite 
variety  characterizes  the  character,  loca- 
tion and  accessibility  ot  the  strata  of  an- 
thracite coal,  while  the  bituminous  coal 
is  usually  much  more  uniform  in  its  loca- 
tion and  quality. 

No  Two  Collieries  Alike. 

The  commission  has  undoubtedly  been 
surprised  to  discover  what  was  unknown 
to  them  and  to  the  public,  prior  to  its 


appointment,  viz.— the  very  great  com- 
plexity of  the  industry.  The  numberless 
varieties  in  number,  location,  pitch  and 
quality  of  the  veins,  in  the  impurities 
which  they  contain,  the  character  of  the 
roof,  the  amount  of  water,  the  quantity 
of  inflammable  gases,  and  other  inci- 
dents to  mining,  produce  a condition  in 
which  no  two  collieries  are  substantially 
alike.  A similar  complexity  characterizes 
the  variety  of  the  occupations  of  em- 
ployes desired  by  the  day  or  month, 
nearly  every  colliery  showing  one  hun- 
dred or  more  different  varieties  of  occu- 
pations, varying  in  the  age  and  skill  re- 
quired and  the  character  of  the  work  to 
be  performed.  The  recognition  of  th's 
complexity  is  of  the  utmost  importance 
in  dealing  with  the  primary  questions  at 
issue  before  the  commission.  In  indus- 
tries employing  but  few  varieties  of 
laborers,  performing  substantially  similar 
work,  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  estab- 
lish uniform  conditions  and  rates  of  pay. 
In  this  industry,  it  is  practically  impossi- 
ble, and  the  favorite  method  of  filing  tie 
demands  for  increase  in  wages  by  the 
imposition  of  a uniform  scale  and  the 
raising  or  lowering  of  the  rates  of  that 
scale  from  time  to  time,  as  the  conditicn 
of  business  warrants,  is  utterly  inappli- 
cable to  this  business,  and  it  is  safe  to 
say,  at  the  outset,  and  thfe  evidence  must 
satisfy  the  commission  of  that  fact,  that 
no  uniform  horizontal  advance  in  the 
wages  for  all  of  the  employes  of  the 
various  companies,  and  at  the  various 
collieries,  can  possibly  be  made  which 
will  do  anything  like  substantial  justice. 
This  peculiarity  of  the  industry  was  for- 
cibly called  to  the  attention  of  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  mine  workers  at  tl  e 
outset  of  the  present  contentions,  in  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Baer,  February  18th,  1902, 
in  which  he  says:  “In  the  judgment  cf 
the  companies  I represent,  it  is  imprac- 
ticable to  form  a wage  scale  for  the 
whole  anthracite  region.  The  mining  cf 
anthracite  coal  is  entirely  different  from 
that  of  bituminous  coal.  * * * Each 
colliery  in  the  anthracite  region,  by  rea- 
son of  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  veins— 
their  pitch,  water  conditions,  depth  and 
the  quality  of  the  coal  and  its  accom- 
panying impurities  (which  vary  in  each 
colliery,  sometimes  amounting  to  two  tons 
of  refuse  to  one  ton  of  merchantable  coal) 
is  a problem  by  itself,  and  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  create  a scale  of  wages  covering 
the  whole  anthracite  field,  which  will  be 
just  to  the  operators  and  to  the  mine 
workers.’’ 

The  same  sentiment,  m other  language, 
was  expressed  by  letters  of  other  opera- 
tors at  the  same  time,  and  has  been  re- 
peated over  and  over  again  in  the  dis- 
cussions before  the  Civic  Federation  and 
communications  to  the  commissioner  i f 
labor,  and  elsewhere. 

The  Days  of  Peace. 

Considering  the  history  of  the  industry, 
it  is  a fact  undisputed  upon  the  record 
that  for  more  than  twenty  years  prior  to 
the  incursion  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers in  the  anthracite  district,  there  had 
been  no  consideraule  strike  in  the  re- 
gion, and  the  natural  inference  from  that 
fact  is  supported  by  the  great  weight  of 
the  testimony  that  the  absence  of  the 
conflicts  between  the  employeis  and  em- 
ployes was  due  to  their  mutual  confi- 
dence and  contentment.  During  a.,  mis 
period  of  varying  conditions  in  the  coun- 
try at  large,  and  in  this  particular  in- 
dustry, there  had  been  no  diminution  in 
the  wages  of  the  mine  workers.  To  quote 
the  language  of  President  Olyphant,  of 


the  Delaware  and  Hudson,  in  his  state- 
ment to  the  commissioner  of  labor  during 
his  investigation  in  June,  “We  had  twen- 
ty-three years  of  perfect  peace — nothing 
to  trouble  us  in  our  mines  anywhere. 
Throughout  that  time  we  adhered  to  the 
rate  of  wages  paid,  no  matter  what  the 
condition  of  the  trade  was.  In  our  com- 
pany we  passed  years  when  we  did  not 
come  near  making  our  fixed  charges,  but 
the  men  had  their  wages  all  the  sanpe. 
Then  we  came  on  to  this  strike  of  19J0. 
the  great  hue  and  cry  v/as  that  the  an- 
thracite workers  had  been  getting  no 
more  than  they  had  received,  while  in 
the  bituminous  and  iron  industries  the 
wages  had  been  raised,  though  in  both 
these  industries  wages  had  been  carried 
to  the  lowest  rates  that  the  men  could 
stand,  and  we  had  never  in  this  region 
given  one  cent  less  than  we  had  agreed 
at  that  time.” 

This  statement  from  the  operators' 
standpoint  receives  remarkable  confirma- 
tion in  the  testimony  of  Mr  Mitchell  be- 
fore the  industrial  commission  imme- 
diately after  the  1900  strike,  (vol.  XII, 
page  700).  “For  many  years  efforts  have 
been  made  by  the  United  Mine  Workers' 
organization  to  organize  the  anthracite 
miners,  but  so  bitter  was  the  antagon- 
ism among  the  men  that  we  were  unable 
to  succeed,  and  as  a consequence  it  be- 
came obvious  to  the  officers  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  that  conditions  of  employ- 
ment could  not  be  improved  unless 
through  a strike  the  miners  should  be 
aroused  from  their  lethargy.”  Substi- 
tuting “contentment”  for  "lethargy,"  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Mitchell  might  almost 
be  substituted  for  that  of  Mr.  Olyphant. 

To  disturb  this  condition  of  mutual  con- 
fidence and  contentment,  there  entered 
the  region  in  1S99  the  emissaries  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  in  an 
effort  to  organize  the  miners  into 
branches  of  their  union.  As  is  indicated 
by  Mr.  Mitchell’s  just-quoted  statement, 
their  efforts  met  with  small  success,  and 
he  frankly  confessed  in  his  testimony 
that  they  had.  up  to  1900,  succeeded  in 
securing  only  about  3.000  members  in 
their  organization,  or  less  than  2 per  cent, 
of  the  actual  mine  workers.  This  handfui 
of  men  met  in  convention  in  the  early 
part  of  1900  and  formulated  demands  nu 
merous  and  drastic  upon  the  employers 
It  has  been  estimated  that  to  have  grant- 
ed all  the  demands  then  made,  would 
have  involved  an  increase  of  70  per  cent, 
in  the  cost  of  mining  coal.  The  demands 
not  being  granted,  a strike  was  oiJced 
in  September,  1900,  and  in  view  ot  the  con 
tention  of  the  Mine  Workers’  officers 
that  the  majority  must  rule  upon  any 
question  of  strike,  the  order  for  this 
strike,  issued  by  a significant  percent- 
age of  mine  workers,  is  presumptuous 
and  tyrannical  to  the  last  degree.  It  was 
as  follows: 

A Tyrannical  Order. 

“You  are.  therefore,  hereby  notified 
that  the  application  of  the  anthracite 
miners  to  strike  in  accordance  with  the 
laws  of  the  United  Mine  Woikers,  has 
been  endorsed,  and  in  accordance  witn 
this  endorsement  all  the  miners  and  mine 
workers  of  the  anthracite  coal  region, 
whether  members  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America,  or  not.  are  in- 
structed to  cease  work  on  or  after  Mon- 
day. September  17. 

This  order  was  only  partially  observed. 
The  miners  at  collieries  which  bad  struck 
organized  themselves  into  marching  bands 
which  circulated  through  the  territory, 
and,  to  a large  extent,  forced  out  the 


employes  of  other  collieries.  It  lasted 
about  twenty-three  days,  and  was  never 
completely  effected.  It  was  characterized 
throughout  by  repeated  acts  of  violence, 
marching  mobs,  frequent  riots,  and  it 
speedily  resulted  in  the  calling  out  of  the 
militia  to  preserve  the  peace. 

It  is  matter  of  history  that  the  strike 
was  made  successful  only  by  the  inter- 
vention of  politicians  of  national  import- 
ance, who  feared  the  effect  of  the  strike 
upon  the  approaching  presidential  elec- 
tion. That  it  would  have  speedily  ended 
in  a complete  victory  of  the  operators, 
but  for  such  outside  interference,  no  one 
familiar  with  the  subject  has  ever 
doubted. 

The  result  of  the  strike  was  an  im- 
mense impetus  to  the  organization  of  an- 
thracite miners  into  the  United  Mire 
Workers.  It  was  easy  to  convince  them 
that  the  power  of  the  union  was  potent 
and  that  substantial  advantages  could  be 
gained  by  membership  in  it.  The  evidence 
has  disclosed  many  of  the  methods  by 
which  this  membership  was  augmented, 
and  the  means  used  to  force  men  into  it. 
It  was  generally  recognized  and  free  y 
stated  that  the  struggle  of  1900  was  only 
a preliminary  skirmish,  which  would  be 
followed  by  more  determined  efforts  to 
bring  within  the  control  of  the  union  the 
entire  anthracite  industry,  until  its 
power  should  be  recognized  by  the  opera- 
tors and  its  decrees  accepted  by  them. 
This  is  evident  from  the  proceedings  of 
the  Hazleton  convention  of  the  three  an- 
thracite districts,  in  March,  1901,  when  a 
resolution  was  offered  to  request  the 
operators  by  telegram  to  meet  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  union,  to  discuss  a 
wage-scale  for  the  ensuing  year.  The 
resolution  was  amended  by  substituting 
the  word  “demand”  for  “request,”  and 
the  communication  was  sent,  giving  one 
day’s  notice  of  the  time  for  such  meet- 
ing. The  movement  thus  inauguiated 
was  proceeded  with  at  the  Shamokin  con- 
vention, in  March,  1902,  where  more  defi- 
nite demands  were  formulated,  and  the 
officers  of  the  organization  were  em- 
powered to  inaugurate  a strike.  Before 
doing  so,  the  good  offices  of  the  Industrial 
branch  of  the  Civic  Federation  were  in- 
voked and  the  operators  rreely  met  the 
representatives  of  the  Mine  Workers  be- 
fore that  body,  and,  during  a considerable 
period  of  time,  fully  discussed  all  mat- 
ters at  issue.  So  far  as  the  Civic  Federa- 
tion might  be  regarded  as  a court  of  ar- 
bitration between  the  parties,  its  failure 
to  recommend  the  granting  of  any  of  the 
miners’  demands  must  be  regarded  as  a 
victory  for  the  operators,  who  were  the 
defendants  in  the  proceeding.  Nothirg 
being  accomplished  in  this  manner,  how- 
over,  the  strike  was  declared,  involving 
all  of  the  mine  workers,  except  firemen, 
engineers  and  pump-runners,  who  were 
excepted  for  the  avowed  reason  that  their 
continuance  at  work  was  necessary  for 
the  preservation  of  the  property.  Thus 
was  inaugurated  the  greatest  strike  in 
the  history  of  this  country. 

Acts  of  Intimidation. 

The  operators  not  yielding  to  the  strike 
order,  the  engineers,  firemen  and  pump- 
men were  promptly  called  out.  That  this 
order  was  purely  an  act  of  intimidation, 
and  that  it  was  made  with  a wicked  ard 
reckless  disregard  of  the  consequences, 
is  sought  to  be  speciously  evaded  by  the 
miners’  counsel,  but  it  is  too  clear  to 
require  extended  argument.  The  same 
option  was  given  to  the  operators  to  save 
their  mines  by  complying  with  the  order, 
which  is  accorded  to  the  traveller  by  the 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


highwayman,  to  save  his  life  by  surren- 
dering his  purse.  That  the  power  to  in- 
timidate the  operators  by  the  use  of  this 
weapon  was  long  before  sought  by  the 
union  is  evident  from  the  history  of  the 
organization  of  the  steam  men.  Durirg 
and  prior  to  the  1900  strike  they  const  - 
tuted  independent  organizations,  havirg 
charters  of  their  own,  with  no  obliga- 
tion to  obey  the  orders  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers.  At  the  convention  of  the 
Federation  of  Labor,  in  December,  1900, 
through  the  efforts  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  these  independent  charters 
were  revoked  and  the  steam  men  in  all 
the  anthracite  industry  were  compelled 
to  join  the  local  unions  of  the  miners’  or- 
ganization, and  thus  become  absolutely 
subject  to  its  control.  They  strenuously 
resisted  this  sacrifice  of  their  independ- 
ence, but  were  overruled.  It  throws  an 
important  side  light  upon  the  consistency 
of  the  miners’  organization  that  when,  in 
July,  1901,  the  firemen  in  the  anthracite 
region  went  on  strike  to  secure  an  eight- 
hour  day,  the  United  Mine  Workers  of- 
fered to,  and  actually  did,  furnish  men 
from  their  organization,  who,  according 
to  their  definition,  could  be  regarded  as 
nothing  but  scabs,  to  fill  the  places  of  the 
striking  firemen.  . This  fact  is  almost 
brutally  avowed  by  District  President 
Duffy  in  his  testimony,  where  he  says: 
“As  president  of  the  district,  I went  to 
the  firemen  that  had  served  notice  on  the 
companies— they  wanted  an  eight-hour 
day  and  gave  only  ten  hours’  notice — and 
I went  in  behind  the  stockade  without 
permission,  and  served  notice  on  them 
firemen  if  they  quit  work  that  our  union 
would  put  men  in  their  places,  and  to 
wait  till  we  was  looking  for  something 
ourselves.” 

The  pretense  that  every  operator  was 
free  to  protect  his  mine  by  granting  the 
eight-hour  day  is  negatived  in  frequent 
parts  of  the  testimony,  Mr.  Mitchell  him- 
self admitting  that  in  one  case  the  union 
refused  to  permit  the  firemen  to  woik 
on  an  eight-hour  day  at  one  mine  be- 
cause the  company  asking  the  privilege 
would  not  grant  the  concession  at  all  its 
mines.  Several  specific  instances  are 
given  in  the  testimony,  of  cases  where 
the  request  for  the  privilege  to  operate 
the  pumps  upon  an  eight-hour  day  was 
refused. 

I shall  not  attempt  to  review  fully  the 
incidents  connected  with  the  strike,  or  the 
various  outside  influences  which  inter- 
terposed  to  prolong  it  from  time  to  time. 
It  was  evident  throughout  the  strike  that 
there  was  hardly  any  prominent  pub- 
licist-or  philanthropist  in  the  country  who 
did  not  consider  himself  fully  competent 
to  pass  upon  the  broad  questions  which 
it  has  taken  this  commission  months  of 
earnest  effort  to  investigate,  upon  a few 
hours’  examination  or  consideration. 

Operators’  Submission. 

When  it  became  evident  that  the  longer 
continuance  of  the  strike  would  involve 
the  people  of  the  country  in  unspeakable 
suffering  from  the  hardships  of  approach- 
ing winter  and  the  industries  of  the  coun- 
try to  interruption  from  lack  of  nec- 
essary fuel,  the  operators  patriotically  ad 
dressed  to  the  public  a communication 
which  became  the  basis  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  this  commission,  and  which  has 
generally  been  spoken  of  as  “the  opera- 
tors’ submission.”  It  has  been  frequent- 
ly stated  by  the  commission,  and  practic- 
ally conceded  by  everyone,  that  this  sub- 
mission constitutes  the  only  warrant  for 
any  action  upon  the  part  of  the  commis- 
sion, and  defines  and  limits  its  powers  in 


213 


the  premises.  It  becomes  important, 
therefore,  to  clearly  state  just  what  was 
submitted.  In  brief,  the  commission  was 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  determining  all 
questions  at  issue  between  the  respective 
companies  and  their  own  employes, 
whether  they  belonged  to  a union  or  not, 
such  decision  to  lie  effective  and  govein 
conditions  of  employment  for  a term  of 
at  least  three  years.  There  were  two  ex- 
press qualifications  upon  this  matter: 

First — That  the  commission’s  decree 
should  not  in  any  way  affect  the  employ- 
ment or  status  of  non-union  men;  and 

Second — That  each  colliery  might  be 
considered  as  a problem  by  itself. 

The  issues  between  the  operators  and 
their  employes  were  based  upon  the  de- 
mands of  the  Shamokin  convention,  which 
were  found  by  the  commissioner  of  la- 
bor during  his  investigation  to  be  as  fol- 
lows: 

1.  An  increase  of  20  per  cent,  to  tt:  c 
miners  who  are  paid  Dy  the  ton;  that 
is,  for  men  performing  contract  work. 

2.  A reduction  of  20  per  cent,  for  th  r 
time  of  per  diem  employes,  reducing  the 
day  to  eight  hours. 

3.  That  2,240  pounds  shall  constitute  the 
ton  on  which  payment  is  based  for  all 
coal  mined  where  the  miners  are  paid  by 
weight  or  quantity,  and  wherever  prac- 
ticable. 

The  discussion  of  these  issues  will  be 
entered  upon  to  a greater  or  less  extent 
by  all  of  the  counsel  for  the  operators, 
and  it  will  be  unnecessary  for  me  to  at- 
tempt to  present  an  exhaustive  argument 
upon  them. 

My  first  observation  must  relate  to  the 
the  miners  in  support  of  these  demands. 
A review  of  the  evidence  presented  by 
them  shows  that  aside  from  general  vague 
opinions  of  Mr.  Mitchell.  Dr.  Roberts  and 
paucity  of  the  evidence  presented  ny 
Mr.  Gompers  there  is  practically  no  evi- 
dence which  bears  directly  unon  the  is- 
sues involved.  Long  days  were  snent  In 
the  consideration  of  cases  of  individuals 
who  had  from  one  cause  or  another  been 
unfortunate  or  who  claimed  to  have  been 
unjustly  treated  since  the  strike,  or  who 
had,  for  reasons  for  which  they  were 
more  or  less  responsible,  failed  to  earn 
good  wages,  and  of  children  who  wer“ 
employed  in  various  industries  at  an  early 
age;  but  for  any  definite,  clear  and  con- 
vincing testimony  to  support  the  miners' 
claims,  search  will  be  made  in  van 
through  the  mass  of  testimony. 

Mr.  Mitchell  a number  of  times  durini 
his  long  examination,  stated  that  so  far 
as  he  gave  any  testimony  or  expressed 
any  opinion  with  reference  to  the  facts 
and  conditions  concerning  the  wages  of 
the  miners,  he  was  speaking  from  infor- 
mation derived  from  the  district  presi- 
dents and  other  officers  resident  in  the 
locality,  and  that  they  would  follow  h m 
upon  the  stand  to  make  more  definite  and 
specific  the  statements  which  he  could 
only  give  generally  and  by  hearsay.  Wo 
have  waited  for  three  months  in  vain  for 
the  appearance  of  these  district  presi- 
dents. They  have  amended  the  meetings 
of  the  commission  with  great  regularity; 
they  have  made  suggestions  to  their  coun- 
sel. and  have  marshalled  the  witnesses, 
but  they  have  presistontly  denied  the 
commission  the  benefit  of  all  the  light 
which  they  presumably  could  hav^  th  own 
upon  the  questions  at  issue  and  the  just- 
ness of  the  demands  which  they  orig'n- 
ally  formulated  and  for  which  they  are 
responsible.  We  must  have  our  own 
views  as  to  the  reasons  -which  actuated 
the  complainants  in  keeping  these  men  off 


214 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


the  stand.  Again  and  again,  their  con- 
nection and  complicity  with  the  reign  of 
terror  which  characterized  the  strike,  has 
been  brought  out, but  save  in  one  instance 
they  have  made  no  effort  to  contradict 
the  testimony.  Papers  in  the  nature  of 
safe  conduct,  such  as  might  be  issued  in 
time  of  war,  to  permit  a person  to  pass 
through  the  lines,  have  been  issued  under 
the  hands  and  seals  of  the  union,  and 
otherwise  it  has  been  made  to  appear 
that  while  ostentatiously  counselling 
peace,  they  were  fomenting  lawlessness 
and  organizing  anarchy.  We  can  only 
conclude  that  the  fear  of  cross-examina- 
tion upon  these  subjects  has  keept  them 
from  coming  forward  to  give  any  infor- 
mation which  they  may  have  for  the 
benefit  of  the  commission. 

Demand  for  20  Per  Cent  Increase. 

The  first  demand  is  for  a 20  per  cent,  in- 
crease upon  the  wages  paid  in  1901  to  con- 
tract miners.  The  first  observation  upon 
this  demand  is  that  the  miners’  own  wit- 
ness and  expert,  Dr.  Roberts,  presented 
a tabulation  which  was  approved  by  the 
miners’  counsel  showing  that  the  produc- 
tion of  coal  in  1901  was  10  per  cent,  higher 
than  the  average  production  for  ten  years 
past,  and  he  admitted  that  it  was  not  fair 
to  ask  the  advance  in  wages  upon  the 
basis  of  an  exceptionally  prosperous  year. 
Upon  his  theory  and  testimony,  if  any 
advance  in  wages  were  granted  it  should 
be  made  upon  average  earnings  and  not 
upon  exceptional  earnings,  which  would 
cut  in  two  the  miners'  demand. 

It  would  be  absolutely  true  to  state 
that  the  miners  have  utterly  failed  to 
substantiate  any  of  the  nine  reasons 
which  they  give  in  their  statement  filed 
with  the  commission  for  the  advance 
asked  for. 

The  earnings  of  contract  miners  of  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  for  1901  are  shown 
by  the  books  and  tabulations  filed  with 
the  commission.  It  would  serve  no  valu- 
able purpose  to  give  them  here  in  detail. 
They  are  classified  by  amounts  earned 
and  by  the  time  worked,  and  while  statis- 
ticians will,  perhaps,  differ  in  the  combi- 
nations of  classes  which  should  be  used  to 
produce  a true  average,  when  every  allow- 
ance has  been  made  for  such  difference 
of  method  the  result  is  an  annual  wage 
adequate,  fair  and  better  than  in  other 
similar  industries.  According  to  Mr. 
Mitchell’s  own  standard  of  living  wags 
or  American  standard,  ft  is  evident  that 
the  miners  are  very  liberally  paid. 

By  the  statement  filed  with  the  commis- 
sion, it  appears  that  the  average  earnings 
of  all  men  employed  by  the  day  or  month, 
excluding  those  employed  for  short  pe- 
riods and  incidental  work,  was  $518.95,  and 
of  all  boys,  excluding  those  employed  for 
short  periods  and  incidental  work,  $185.93. 
These  earnings,  considering  that  the  large 
proportion  of  the  employments  are  en- 
tirely unskilled  labor,  are  certainly  ade- 
quate. These  also  had  10  per  cent,  ad- 
vance in  1900. 

Considering  that  these  miners  worked 
only  on  an  average  of  5%  hours  per  day, 
the  rate  of  wages  as  given  aoove  appears 
even  higher  that  it  would  at  tirst  seem. 
Without  reviewing  the  several  reasons 
given  for  the  advance  in  pay,  I would 
state  that  the  mass  of  testimony  and  the 
appearance  of  the  miners  who  have  been 
upon  the  stand  must  convince  the  com- 
mission that  mining  is  not  an  unusually 
unhealthy  occupation.  The  testimony 
of  Dr.  Keller,  showing  the  small  num- 
ber of  applicants  for  Insurance  from 
among  the  miners,  who  were  rejected, 
and  the  tables  of  rates  for  industrial  in- 


surance, are  the  most  conclusive  evi- 
dence upon  this  point.  If  any  argument 
is  based  upon  the  fact  that  there  have 
been  general  increases  of  wages  during 
the  present  period  of  commercial  pros- 
perity, the  answer  of  the  operators  is 
that  the  advance  which  has  recently  come 
to  other  employes  was  granted  to  the 
miners  in  1900,  and  as  Mr.  Rose  testified, 
would  undoubtedly  have  been  granted 
ere  this  voluntarily  even  if  there  haa 
been  no  strike. 

Second  demand:  For  an  eight-hour  day 
The  testimony  of  practically  all  the  wit- 
nesses upon  both  sides  is  that  owing  to 
irregularity  of  the  market  and  similar 
causes,  the  breakers  hardly  average  more 
than  eight  hours  a day,  so  that  the  phy- 
sical effects  of  long  hours  are  not  felt. 

Third  Demand. 

The  third  demand:  That  coal  be 

weighed  and  that  sixty  cents  be  the  mini- 
mum price  per  ton.  Mr.  Mitchell  admits 
that  this  is  part  of  the  first  demand  and 
involves  no  further  increase  of  wages. 
The  Delaware  and  Hudson  company  pays 
some  of  its  miners  by  weight  and  some 
by  car.  Both  methods  are  merely  the 
adoption  of  arbitrary  units  for  payment 
and  the  allowances  and  extras  which  are 
granted  to  those  who  have  unfortunate 
places  are  constantly  adjusted  so  as  to 
secure  as  nearly  as  practicable  uniformity 
in  pay. 

It  is  important  to  consider  that  the  op- 
erators are  not  purchasing  a commodity 
from  the  miners,  but  are  merely  paying 
them  for  labor  performed:  that  they  have 
no  interest  or  title  in  the  coal  itself,  but 
are  merely  entitled  to  a stipend  for  work 
actually  done.  Any  system  which  pro- 
duces adequate  and  reasonably  unltorm 
wages  is  equally  good,  and  that  the  vari- 
ous systems  by  car  and  by  weight  do 
accomplish  that  end  is  manifest  from  the 
examination  of  the  statements  filed. 

From  the  entire  mass  of  testimony,  it 
is  evident  that  there  was  no  expression 
of  dissatisfaction  with  the  methods  in 
vogue,  until  the  advent  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  who  sought  to  introduce 
methods  in  use  in  the  bituminous  fields 
In  order  to  get  the  anthracite  industry 
upon  such  a basis  as  would  justify  de- 
mands for  uniform  increases  of  wages 
from  time  to  time.  As  has  already  been 
said,  it  is  impossible  to  reduce  the  vary- 
ing conditions  of  anthracite  mining  to 
any  such  basis  of  uniformity. 

The  practical  difficulties  of  a uniform 
method  of  payment  by  weight  were  recog- 
nized and  testified  to  by  two  of  the  prin- 
cipal witnesses  for  the  miners,  Dr.  Rob- 
erts and  Mr.  Haddock.. 

The  practical  difficulties  of  working  out 
the  application  of  the  demand  are  so 
great  as  should  appall  any  one  who  un- 
dertook it.  The  present  rates  of  pay- 
ment per  car  upon  miners’  ton  in  every 
vein  of  every  colliery  must  be  changed  to 
suit  a new  uniform  system;  otherwise, 
there  would  be  an  increase  in  wages 
which  is  not  asked  for  in  the  demand.  It 
is  very  certain  that  any  changes  which 
were  thus  made  would  be  regarded  with 
great  suspicion  by  the  individual  miners, 
and  unless  it  was  very  clear  that  he  was 
getting  as  much  or  more  pay  than  hereto- 
fore, there  would  be  unlimited  friction 
and  dissatisfaction.  It  is  safe  to  say 
that  unless  the  rates  were  rearranged  in 
such  a way  as  to  actually  and  substan- 
tially increase  the  miners'  pay,  the 
miners  would  feel  sure  that  it  had  been 
diminished. 

I have  been  unable,  thus  far,  to  find 


anyone  who  can  satisfactorily  explain  to 
me'the  word  “differential,”  as  used  in  this 
demand.  I understand  that  in  bituminots 
mining  it  applies  to  the  difference  in 
rates  between  pick  and  machine  mining. 
There  is  no  such  difference  here.  It  is 
probably  intended  to  cover  allowances 
and  extras,  but  it  would  certainly  be  un- 
fair that  all  these  allowances  and  extras 
should  be  maintained  precisely  as  they 
are  if  the  basis  of  payment  were  changed. 

Another  issue  which  has  been  injected 
into  the  case  is  the  alleged  discrimina- 
tion against  union  men  who  have  been 
refused  re-employment  since  the  strike. 
The  obligation  of  the  operators  to  re- 
employ all  their  men  is  only  an  inference, 
at  best,  and  we  do  not  think  that  the 
commission  can  fairly  infer  from  the 
statement  that  the  men  must  return  to 
work  that  all  of  them  would  be  given  re- 
employment. Mr.  Mitchell,  in  his  article 
in  McClure's  Magazine,  praises  the 
miners  at  their  Wilkes-Barre  convention, 
when  the  operators'  submission  was  ac- 
cepted, for  being  wililng  to  sacrifice  large 
numbers  of  their  members,  whom  they 
knew  would  not  be  re-employed.  Certain- 
ly they  must  have  included  in  this  class 
all  those  whose  places  had  been  filled  or 
who  had  been  guilty  of  such  lawlessness 
and  disorder  as  subjected  them  to  crimi- 
nal charges.  Almost  without  exception, 
the  numerous  cases  which  have  been  pre- 
sented to  the  commission  fall  within 
these  classes.  So  far  as  relates  to  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company,  I find 
by  the  examination  of  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses  who  were  called  to  prove 
discrimination,  that  five  miners  were  not 
re-employed  because  the  chambers  in 
which  they  had  worked  had  fallen  or  been 
stopped;  that  four  refused  to  do  the 
work  to  which  they  were  assigned,  two 
of  them  absolutely  refusing  to  work  cn 
boycotted  headings;  two  had  found  their 
places  had  already  been  filled  by  non- 
union men;  one  (William  Early)  had  re- 
fused to  do  tvork  to  which  he  was  as- 
signed, and,  in  addition,  had  issued  a 
warrant  for  the  arrest  of  a small  child, 
whose  appearance  upon  the  stand  indi- 
cated her  youth  and  innocence.  One  only 
(John  Balderson)  gave  as  the  only  reason 
for  his  discharge  that  he  had  been  too 
noisy  and  disorderly  during  the  strike.  It 
was  stated  by  these  witnesses  that  they 
were  told  by  Mr.  Rose  that  if  they  wrould 
have  patience  he  would  find  work  fir 
them  as  soon  as  possible,  but  that  there 
were  too  many  men  already  in  the  mines, 
as  they  themselves  admitted.  Mr.  Oly- 
phant’s letter  of  instruction  to  Mr.  Ro:e 
breathed  a spirit  of  good-will  and  kindli- 
ness and  offered  practically  general  am- 
nesty. 

The  Fourth  Demand. 

The  fourth  demand  is  that  the  operators 
shall  enter  into  contracts  governing  tne 
wages  and  terms  of  employment  with 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 
We  have  Insisted,  and  still  insist,  that 
this  demand  is  not  within  the  terms  i f 
submission,  and  therefore  not  before  the 
commission,  but  since  the  testimony  has 
been  taken  upon  it  upon  both  sides,  it 
seems  necessary  to  present  some  argu- 
ment upon  It,  reserving  at  all  times  the 
right  to  insist  upon  the  fact  that  it  is  not 
before  the  commission. 

The  character  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  is  somewhat  pertinent  to  the 
issues  involved,  in  connection  with  I s 
bearing  upon  the  relations  between  the 
operators  and  their  employes,  independ- 
ently of  the  specific  demand  under  dis- 
cussion. 


The  following  are  some  of  the  objec- 
tions which  the  operators  urge  to  the 
character,  aims  and  methods  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers: 

First— It  is  a gigantic  trust,  formed  for 
the  express  and  avowed  purpose  of  con- 
trolling all  the  labor  connected  with  the 
entire  mining  industry  of  the  country, 
and  thereby  to  dominate  absolutely  that 
industry. 

When  Mr.  Mitchell  was  asked  if  it  was 
within  the  power  of  the  Mine  Workers  to 
tie  up  all  the  fuel  of  the  country,  he  says: 
"It  is  not  impossible  in  the  sense  that  it 
could  not  be  done,  but  it  is  not  at  all 
probable,”  and  again,  “I  think  there  is 
no  possibility  of  the  entire  coal  industiy 
being  paralyzed,  although,  under  our  law, 
it  is  within  the  power  of  the  board  to  do 
it.”  He  says,  “Our  purpose  is  to  have 
every  coal  miner  in  the  United  States  a 
member  of  our  organization.” 

Second— It  must  be  manifest  to  the  com- 
mission that  it  is  unwise  and  inexpedient 
that  both  the  immense  bituminous  indus- 
try and  the  anthracite  industry,  which 
are  rival  and  competing,  should  be  con- 
trolled by  the  same  organization.  This  is 
doubly  unfair  to  the  anthracite  industry 
when  that  organization  is  absolutely  con- 
trolled by  an  executive  board  of  which 
only  three  members  out  of  twenty-one 
are  from  the  anthracite  region.  This 
holds  out  a clear  and  definite  invitation 
to  the  bituminous  miners,  at  any  time 
when  the  coal  market  is  restricted,  to  so 
manipulate  the  organization  as  to  dis- 
criminate against  the  anthracite  industry 
in  favor  of  bituminous.  There  is  more 
than  a mere  imaginary  danger  that  the 
ordinary  selfishness  of  the  industrial  com- 
petition would  lead  to  such  a result. 

Third— The  operators  have  over  and 
over  again  stated  that  they  had  never 
discrimiated  against  any  of  their  em- 
ployes because  of  their  membership  in 
any  union,  and,  considering  the  zeal  of 
the  miners  and  their  representatives,  it 
is  remarkable  that  they  have  been  unable 
to  produce  proof  of  such  discrimination, 
if  any  such  existed.  The  operators  do, 
however,  insist  that  each  company  is  an 
entity  by  iself;  that  it  has  a right  to  in- 
sist upon  dealing  directly  with  its  own 
employes.  It  admits  their  right  to  be 
represented  in  the  final  discussion  of  dif- 
ferences by  persons  whom  they  choose  as 
their  attorneys  in  fact,  but  it  is  contrary 
to  every  principle  of  law  to  interject  be- 
tween the  two  contracting  parties  a third 
organization  having  no  direct  interest  in 
either,  but  having  ends  to  serve  which 
might  interfere  with  its  justness  and  fair- 
ness. 

Fourth— We  most  strenuously  object  to 
the  character  of  the  organization  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers.  It  not  only  admits 
to  its  membership,  but  it  seeks  to  force 
into  it,  all  the  employes,  including  boys, 
who  constitute  about  twenty  per  cent,  of 
its  membership,  and  foreigners,  unable 
to  speak  the  English  language,  thereby 
rendering  its  local  unions  a body  only 
fit  to  be  called  an  unreasoning  mob,  sub- 
ject to  every  appeal  to  passion  and  pre- 
judice, and  swayed  by  the  specious  ar- 
guments of  a professional  agitator.  Its 
action  is  uniformly  taken  upon  a viva 
voce  vote,  giving  to  radical  and  violent 
members  the  opportunity  and  the  power 
to  overawe  and  intimidate  the  more  rea- 
sonable and  conservative.  It  declares  fre- 
quent strikes,  and  they  are  always  ac- 
companied by  violence,  intimidation  and 
lawlessness.  Whenever  it  has  come  be- 
fore the  courts,  its  methods  have  been 
severely  condemned.  (See  Renicke  Coal 
Co.  v«.  Wood,  112  Fed.  Rap.  477;  U.  S.  vs. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


Weber,  et  al.,  114  Fed.  Rep.  960;  U.  S.  vs. 
Haggetry,  et  al.,  116  Fed.  Rep.  510.) 

Violates  Personal  Eights. 

It  practices  and  justifies  the  boycott  in 
all  its  forms  and  ramifications.  It  pro- 
claims and  enforces  the  doctrine  that  no 
man  has  a moral  right  to  work  when 
others  strike.  It  repudiates  and  violates 
every  personal  right  of  non-union  men. 

Fifth— We  claim  that  we  ought  not  to 
be  asked  to  enter  into  contracts  with  an 
organization  which  is  utterly  irresponsi- 
ble. It  refuses  to  become  incorporated 
or  to  take  any  other  methods  of  giving 
substantial  guaranty  of  the  fulfillment 
of  its  contracts.  While  admitting  the  ir- 
responsible character  of  a large  propor- 
tion of  its  members,  including  boys  and 
ignorant  foreigners,  and  while  repudiat- 
ing all  responsibility  for  treating  its  em- 
ployers fairly  or  protecting  their  proper- 
ty in  the  absence  of  a contract,  it  in- 
sists that  contracts  shall  be  entered  into 
for  the  purpose  of  assisting  it  in  evolv- 
ing a more  satisfactory  union  in  the 
future.  It  thus  reverses  the  time-honored 
principle  that  demonstrated  responsibility 
should  precede  the  formation  of  a con- 
tract, and  would  force  the  execution  of 
a contract  in  order  to  develop  respon- 
sibility. 

Sixth — We  contend  that  the  power  to 
declare  strikes  by  a viva  voce  vote  and 
a bare  majority,  if  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  the  character  of  the  personnel 
of  the  organization,  constitutes  a con- 
stant menace  to  the  operators  who  deal 
with  it.  The  great  majority  of  the  con- 
servative miners  were  against  the  late 
strike,  and  even  by  the  methods  pur- 
sued by  the  agitators,  it  was  possible  to 
secure  only  fifty-seven  per  cent,  of  the 
total  vote  at  the  Wilkes-Barre  convention 
in  favor  of  the  strike.  We  are  informed 
that  at  the  recent  national  convention  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers,  the  const. tu- 
tion  was  so  amended  as  to  require  a two- 
thirds  vote  to  justify  a strike.  If  this 
law  had  been  enforced  a year  ago,  theie 
would  have  been  no  strike. 

Seventh— The  higher  officers  of  the  or- 
ganization seek  to  escape  responsibility 
for  the  more  glaring  defects  in  its  opera- 
tion. A careful  consideration  of  the  tes- 
timony, however,  will  indicate  that  the 
very  worst  things  which  are  done  are 
the  direct  outgrowth  of  the  principh  s 
eunciated  by  its  leaders.  Let  us  con- 
sider a few  of  them: 

(a)  Intimidation.  Mr.  Mitchell  ad- 
mitted in  his  testimony  before  the  In- 
dustrial commission  that  intimidation  is 
used.  He  seeks  to  discriminate  between 
lawful  and  unlawful  intimidation,  approv- 
ing the  former,  while  condemning  the 
latter. 

(b)  The  practice  of  picketing  is  openly 
advocated,  while  it  is  qualified  by  the 
advice  that  pickets  shall  do  nothing  un- 
lawful. 

(c)  It  approves  of  the  boycott  while 
stating  that  it  should  be  exercised  within 
the  limits  of  the  law. 

(d)  It  approves  restriction  of  individual 
effort,  Mr.  Mitchell  saying  that  men  have 
no  right  to  work  as  much  as  they  can. 

(e)  While  admitting  the  legal  right  of 
men  to  work  when  they  will,  it  denies 
the  moral  right  of  non-union  men  to  work 
while  others  are  upon  strike. 

In  all  these  particulars  it  is  perfectly 
manifest  that  the  public  utterance  of  the 
purpose  and  intention  to  keep  within  the 
limits  of  the  law  can  have  no  real  control 
over  the  actions  of  irresponsible  members 
of  the  organization  when  in  the  midst  of 
a great  struggle.  The  leaders  constantly 


215 


refuse  to  give  their  followers  any  definiti 
and  specific  instructions  as  to  what  does 
or  does  not  constitute  an  infraction  of  the 
law.  They  satisfy  themselves  with  the 
general  advice  to  do  the  things  which  can 
only  effectively  be  done  by  a breach  of 
the  law,  but  to  do  them  within  the  law. 
They  are  perfectly  aware,  both  from  in- 
ference and  from  long  experience,  that 
the  result  will  be  that  the  members  will 
in  the  heat  of  passion  go  any  length  nec- 
essary to  accomplish  their  purpose,  en- 
couraged by  the  declaration  of  general 
principles.  Thus,  all  of  the  lawlessness 
and  violence  and  infraction  of  private 
right  are  the  direct,  immediate  and  nec 
essary  dutgrowth  of  the  vicious  principles 
declared  by  the  leaders;  and  they,  and 
they  only,  are  primarily  responsible  for 
all  the  results  which  follow. 

Eighth— The  union  does  not  discipline 
its  members  for  crime.  All  of  the  testi- 
mony shows  this.  Challenged  to  do  so, 
the  leaders  could  cite  no  single  instance 
where  any  member  had  been  put  out  of 
the  union  for  lawlessness.  Two  of  its 
members,  during  the  recent  strike,  plead- 
ed guilty  to  murder.  It  was  shown  that 
they  are  still  members  of  the  union  and 
a resolution  was  passed  at  the  Shamokin 
convention,  petitioning  for  the  pardon 
of  men  who  had  actually  been  convicted 
of  crime,  who  were  still  spoken  of  as 
“our  brothers.” 

The  responsibility  is  sought  to  be  shift- 
ed from  the  central  organization  with  rel- 
erence  to  most  of  these  matters,  by  leav- 
ing them  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  lo- 
cals, which  is  a very  convenient  waj  of 
being  wilfully  blind  to  what  is  done  and 
expected  to  be  done.  All  boycotts  are  de- 
clared and  enforced  by  locals.  All  pickets 
are  appointed  and  regulated  by  locals. 
All  matters  of  personal  discipline  are  left 
in  the  hands  of  locals,  so  that  it  may  be 
easy  for  the  general  officers  to  plead  ig- 
norance of  any  infractions  of  law. 

Ninth — The  union  sets  itself  against  and 
above  the  institutions  and  laws  of  the 
country.  Every  branch  of  government 
comes  within  its  condemnation.  The  ex- 
ecutive, consisting  of  peace  officers  and 
military  arm  of  government,  is  accused 
of  every  sort  of  improper  action,  and  is 
condemned.  The  decrees  of  the  courts 
are  regarded  with  suspicion  and  are  either 
evaded  or  defied,  and  every  act  of  the 
legislature  which  in  any  way  exeicises 
control  over  the  membership  is  marked 
for  violation  or  repeal.  The  union  further 
encourages  its  members  to  believe  t.iat 
they  will  not  be  punished  for  infractions 
of  law,  and  unfortunately  for  the  peace 
of  the  commonwealth  their  assurance  in 
this  regard  seem  to  he  largely  justified  by 
the  event.  Their  success  in  paralyzing  the 
actions  of  the  executive  officers,  and  in 
securing  the  passage  of  class  legislation 
for  overawing  or  influencing  grand  and 
petit  juries  constitutes  a menace  to  tli  ; 
perpetuity  of  free  institutions  for  our 
country.  The  connivance  or  actual  par- 
ticipation of  nearly  all  the  local  authori- 
ties in  the  anthracite  region  in  the  law- 
less acts  of  the  mine  workers,  as  proved 
by  the  testimony,  constitutes  a startling 
commentary  upon  the  influence  which  this 
organization  has  been  able  to  exercisc- 
upon  all  civil  authority. 

Mitchell’s  Coal  Article. 

In  an  article  in  McClure's  Magazine  for 
December,  1902,  entitled  “The  Coal 
Strike,”  written  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
strike,  Mr.  Mitchell  says:  "If  labor 

makes  unreasonable  demands,  if  it  at- 
tempts to  dominate  through  violence  and 


216 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


intimidation,  if  it  seeks  to  maintain  mon- 
opoly through  suppression  of  the  right  of 
others  to  work  when  they  are  willing  to 
work,  labor  loses  its  case.” 

Speaking  for  the  party  whom  I repre- 
sent—and  I doubt  not  for  all  the  opera- 
tors, whether  corporate  or  independent, 
I would  be  willing  to  set  aside  all  other 
Issues  which  are  presented  to  the  com- 
mission, and  request  them  to  make  their 
award  upon  the  issue  thus  presented. 
The  statement  practically  recognizes  that 
all  temporary  questions  of  rates  of  wages 
and  conditions  of  employment  are  sub- 
sidiary to  the  question  of  the  conduct  of 
the  labor  unions  and  the  corporations 
toward  each  other.  It  recognizes  that 
even  though  it  might  be  found  that  in 
some  places  wages  were  not  as  high  as 
they  ought  to  be,  yet  at  the  end  of  a long 
struggle  inaugurated  by  the  mine  work- 
ers to  the  great  injury  of  their  employers 
and  of  the  public,  as  well  as  of  them- 
selves, and  those  dependent  upon  them, 
if  the  purposes  of  the  organization  were 
wrong  and  pernicious,  if  their  conduct 
was  lawless  and  revolutionary,  it  would 
be  unwise  to  do  the  puDlic  a great  injury 
of  lasting  consequence  in  order  to  right 
a local  and  temporary  wrong.  The  en- 
couragement which  would  result  to  unions 
of  the  character  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  and  the  stimulus  which  would 
be  given  to  the  tyrannical  lawlessness 
and  defiant  methods  which  they  have  pur- 
sued, by  any  substantial  award  in  tnen 
favor,  would  be  so  disastrous  to  the  fu- 
ture commercial  well-being  of  the  coun- 
try as  to  be  dearly  bought  by  the  opin- 
ion that  the  award  was  giving  some  help 
where  help  was  needed. 

Let  us  now  take  up  in  more  detail  the 
heads  of  the  issue  presented  as  above  by 
Mr.  Mitchell.  Let  us  inquire  if  labor  has 
in  this  instance  made  unreasonable  de- 
mands. There  is  hardly  any  basis  upon 
which  the  subject  can  be  considered 
which  would  not  lead  to  that  conclusion. 

“If  labor  attempts  to  dominate  through 
violence  and  intimidation.”  Certainly  no 
person  of  intelligence  or  capacity  to  un- 
derstand evidence  count  question — after 
reading  the  mass  of  testimony  with  ref- 
erence to  intimidation  before,  during  and 
after  the  strike,  and  violence,  systematic, 
universal  and  continuous — that  not  only 
were  violence  and  intimidation  the  agen- 
cies deliberately  selected  for  the  promo- 
tion of  the  purposes  of  the  Mine  Work- 
ers, but  that  it  was  practically  upon 
them  alone  that  they  depended  and  from 
them  alone  their  success  was  secured, 
and  the  long  continuance  of  the  strike 
was  made  possible. 

“If  labor  seeks  to  maintain  monopoly 
through  suppression  of  the  right  of  oth- 
ers to  work  when  they  are  willing  to 
work.”  By  this  declaration  that  it  is  the 
policy  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  to 
embrace  in  its  membership  every  coal 
miner  in  the  United  States;  by  numer- 
ous resolutions  of  conventions  of  this 
union,  requiring  every  man  to  become  a 
member  and  wear  the  working  button, 
and  directing  strikes  where  that  is  not 
done;  by  the  boycotting,  intimidation  and 
assaults  upon  non-union  men  both 
before  and  during  the  strike;  by  the  ac- 
tion of  numberless  local  unions  oppress- 
ing and  driving  out  thoso  who  are  not 
members  of  the  organization;  in  short,  by 
every  act  and  declaration  of  the  organi- 
zation, its  settled  policy  is  demonstrated 
to  be  precisely  what  Mr.  Mitchell  has  de- 
scribed it. 

Upon  the  issue  suggested  by  the  leader 
of  the  Mine  Workers  himself,  labor  loses 


its  case  and  should  not  be  encouraged  by 
any  measure  of  success,  however  small, 
to  persist  in  the  wicked  and  tyrannical 
course  which  it  had  thus  pursued. 

Mr.  Torrey  concluded  his  address  at 

3.30,  and  was  followed  immediately  by 
Major  Warren,  who  spoke  until  nearly 

5.30.  He  said; 


THE  ADDRESS  OF 

EVERETT  WARREN,  ESQ. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen:  I must 

use  my  first  words  in  expressing  my  ap- 
preciation of  the  uniform  and  sustained 
interest  taken  by  the  members  of  the 
commission  in  the  evidence  presented  and 
the  details — often  wearisome  in  the  ex- 
treme—of  these  protracted  hearings.  I 
want  also  to  thank  the  assistant  recorder. 
Dr.  Neil,  and  all  associated  with  you 
in  this  laborious  undertaking,  including 
the  stenographers,  xor  many  courtesies 
extended  and  kindnesses  shown.  It  has 
been  a great  personal  pleasure  to  me  to 
have  had  the  opportunity  of  meeting  and 
greeting  you  ali. 

A word  as  to  the  counsel  on  the  other 
side.  I doubt  if  a single  proposition 
could  be  framed  by  Mr.  Darrow  on  any 
political  or  economic  question  to  which  1 
would  agree,  and  yet  I want  to  say  that 
I believe  in  his  sincerity,  recognize  his 
ability  and  have  greatly  enjoyed  his  com- 
panionship. It  has  been  a pleasure,  too, 
to  meet  the  learned  counsel  associated 
with  him  on  behalf  of  the  Mine  Workers. 

It  is  from  no  desire  to  magnify  their 
own  Importance,  in  the  humble  relation 
they  bear  to  it,  that  counsel  are  im- 
pressed that  the  questions  involved  here 
are  as  momentous  and  far  reaching,  the 
opportunity  afforded  you  to  render  a 
great  public  service  as  imperative  and 
precious  as  in  the  case  of  any  question 
presented  in  many  years  to  any  tribunal, 
however  constituted.  You  are  at  liberty 
to  deal  persuasively  and  authoritatively 
with  the  most  vital  questions  affecting 
the  nature  of  our  great  anthracite  indus- 
try. The  rights  of  persons,  the  rights  of 
property,  the  rights  of  employer,  the 
rights  of  employe,  popular  liberty  and 
constitutional  limitations,  the  phenomena 
of  human  associations,  the  interests  and 
the  happiness  of  the  people— all  these  are, 
to  some  extent,  involved  in  this  submis- 
sion. 

Perils  of  Our  Time. 

“One  of  the  perils  of  our  time,”  says  a 
great  writer  on  Social  Elements  (Hen- 
derson, page  Ilf),  ‘is  the  disease  of  econ- 
omic hysterics.”  Our  fiiends  on  the  othei 
side  are  suffering,  I think,  with  a very 
bad  attack  of  this  disoider.  “Genius,”  the 
author  continues,  "it  is  well  said,  is  char- 
acterized by  sanity,  self  conti  ol,  balance 
and  all-sided  consideration.  It  is  our 
duty  to  wait  until  we  have  taken  into  ac- 
count all  the  materials  for  a judgment. 
Heat  without  light  is  a real  danger.  Pa- 
tience is  the  duty  of  every  person  who 
proposes,  in  any  way,  to  influence  pub 
lie  opinion  or  lead  any  social  action.”  At 
the  outset,  therefore,  I plead  a broad, 
sane,  conservative  and  restraining  treat- 
ment of  the  great  questions  before  you, 
Involving,  as  they  do,  the  conduct  of  hu- 
man forces,  the  adjustment  of  social 
problems,  the  preservation  of  society  it- 
self, in  short  for  the  assertion  and  appli- 
cation of  the  principles  which  lie  at  the 
very  foundation  of  the  social  fabric.  The 
real  parties  to  this  sunmisston  are  the 
employes  of  the  several  companies,  on  the 
one  side,  or  certain  of  them,  and  their 


employers  on  the  other.  They  who  are 
seeking  to  become  parties  and  intruding 
themselves  upon  this  commission,  abso- 
lutely without  warrant  by  the  terms 
thereof,  are  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  and  especially  in  districts  Nos. 
1,  7 and  9 of  that  organization.  If  any 
evidence  of  this  were  needed,  aside  from 
the  documents  relating  to  the  strike  now 
in  your  possession,  attention  is  called  to 
the  demands  as  filed  with  the  commission 
on  behalf  of  the  Mine  Workers  and  to 
the  fact  that  they  are  signed  by  John 
Mitchell  as  the  '-epresentative  of  the  an- 
thracite mine  workers.  There  is  no  pre- 
tense of  any  appearance  for.  or  on  be- 
half of,  or  by  the  United  Mine  Workers 
of  America. 

Issues  Well  Defined. 

The  issues  are  well  defined.  The  Mine 
Workers  have  the  laboring  oar.  They  are 
bound  to  sustain  their  demands  by  the 
fair  -weight  of  the  evidence  and  I care 
not  how  the  evidence  reaches  you.  You 
are  not  bound  by  the  stiict  rules  of  law, 
of  course.  Seekers  after  truth,  you  want 
it  and  you  will  take  it  from  whatever 
source  it  may  come  and  give  it  fair  con- 
sideration. You  will  penetrate  all  flimsy 
disguises  and  half  truths  I take  it,  will 
not  count  in  your  balances.  Now  no  one 
has  told  us  where  these  demands  origin- 
ated. It  is  said  they  were  formulated  by 
the  Shamokin  convention.  As  presented 
to  the  commission,  however,  they  are  in 
entirely  different  form  and  supported  by 
certain  reasons.  Many  of  these  reasons 
are  inapplicable  to  the  anthracite  industry 
and,  I submit,  that  the  mere  reading  of 
the  demands  must  satisfy  you  that  the  ef- 
fort here  is  to  introduce  into  this  indus- 
try conditions  and  methods  foreign  to  it 
and  injurious  in  the  extreme.  Let  us  ex- 
amine these  claims  and  see  if  they  have 
been  supported  in  any  fair  way  by  the 
evidence.  And  in  their  consideration  I 
ask  the  attention  of  the  commission  to 
the  fact  that  the  northern  field,  in  which 
the  companies  I represent  are  engaged  in 
business,  is  a problem  by  itself.  You 
must  consider  us  by  ourselves.  Our  re- 
gion is  not  the  Lehigh  region  or  the 
Schuylkill  region.  There  is  no  similarity 
in  the  conditions  or  the  methods  and 
what  I may  say,  it  mi  st  be  borne  in 
mind,  and  I will  say  it  now  once  for  all. 
refers  to  the  conditions  and  methods  and 
the  situation  generally  in  the  northern 
field.  You  must  not  expect  me  to  cover 
the  whole  of  this  field  even.  As  I said 
once  before.  I cannot  crowd  Olympus  into 
a nut.  In  what  1 shall  say  I will  try  to 
be  fair  and  strictly  within  the  limits  of 
the  testimony.  Permit  me  to  express  the 
hope  that  it  may  be  of  some  assistance 
in  your  further  deliberations. 

The  First  Demand. 

The  first  demand  is  one  for  an  Increase 
of  twenty  per  cent,  upon  the  prices  paid 
during  the  year  1901  to  employes  per- 
forming contract  or  piece  work.  In  sup- 
port of  this  demand,  it  Is  alleged  that 
the  present  rate  of  wages  is  much  lower 
than  the  rate  of  wages  paid  in  the  bi- 
tuminous coal  fields  for  substantially 
similar  work.  I do  not  believe  the  per- 
son who  made  that  statement  had  ary 
knowledge  whatever  of  the  rate  of  wages 
paid  in  the  northern  coal  fields,  or  he 
would  not  have  made  it.  The  only  evi- 
dence I can  recall  that  would  justify  the 
inference  that  the  mine  workers  had  any 
idea  of  the  present  rate  of  wages  In  this 
region  was  that  given  by  Mr.  Mitchell 
when  he  referred  to  the  collection  of  due 
bills,  through  the  district  presidents  of 


his  organization,  and  he  frankly  admitted 
that  they  could  not  possibly  be  a fair 
criterion  of  the  rate  of  wages  throughout 
the  region.  Where  is  the  evidence  as  to 
the  rate  of  wages  paid  in  the  bituminous 
coal  fields  for  substantially  similar  work? 
Who  has  testified  before  you  that  the 
work  of  the  contract  miner  in  the  bitum- 
inous coal  fields  is  substantially  similar 
to  that  of  the  miner  in  our  section?  It 
was  a mere  guess,  at  best,  and  now  that 
you  have  the  rate  of  wages  in  our  sec- 
tion, for  the  year  1901,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  as  to  the  impropriety  of  this  rea- 
son. We  are  told  that  the  rate  of  wages 
paid  by  our  companies  is  lower  than  paid 
in  any  other  occupation  requiring  equal 
skill  and  training.  Not  to  descend  to  fig- 
ures and  particulars,  it  is  very  clear  that 
the  contract  miner,  in  the  year  1901,  had 
it  within  his  power  to  earn  a very  much 
larger  sum  than  the  wages  paid  in  any 
other  occupation  requiring  anything  like 
the  same  amount  of  skill  and  training, and 
actually  did  earn,  notwithstanding  the  re- 
strictions of  his  organization  upon  h's 
earning  capacity,  a very  much  larger 
yearly  earning  than  his  fellow-craftsman 
of  similar  skill  in  any  other  occupation 
in  Northeastern  Pennsylvania.  It  is 
claimed  the  rate  of  wages  is  insufficient 
to  compensate  the  mine  worker,  in  view 
of  the  hazards  of  his  employment  and 
the  short  trade  life.  We  have  shown  you, 
by  the  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Mines 
and  the  mine  inspectors  for  these  dis- 
tricts, that  the  dangers  incident  to  the 
employment  have  been  vastly  exagger- 
ated; that  a large  proportion  of  them 
are  not  incident  to  the  employment  at  all, 
but  are  due  to  the  recklessness  of  the 
men  themselves,  their  disobedience  of 
orders,  their  desire  to  leave  their  cham- 
bers at  an  early  hour,  the  “hurry  up’’ 
habit,  it  is  called,  without  taking  the 
necessary  precautions  to  insure  the  safe- 
ty of  their  fellow  workmen,  and  their 
carelessness  and  indifference,  at  times, 
to  even  the  most  ordinary  prudence  and 
care.  Most  of  the  contract  miners  seem 
to  feel  hurt  if  they  are  obliged  to  stay 
in  their  chamber  after  the  noon  hour, 
and  the  large  proportion  of  them,  it  has 
been  shown  by  the  overwhelming  testi- 
mony, are  out  of  the  mines  by  2 o'clock 
in  the  afternoon.  In  the  report  for  1900, 
the  mine  inspector  for  the  First  Anthra- 
cite district  says:  “If  half  the  care  were 
exercised  by  the  miners  themselves  that 
is  exercised  by  the  foremen  and  their  as- 
sistants over  them,  the  accidents  would 
be  very  greatly  diminished.’’  (Page  3.) 
“The  reckless  indifference  to  danger  on 
the  part  of  drivers,  in  jumping  on  and 
off  cars,  is  shown  to  be  the  source  of 
the  greatest  number  of  accidents  to  the 
day  men.’’  In  considering  the  dangers,  it 
is,  of  course,  fair  to  take  into  account 
dangers  that  may  be  due  to  what  we  call 
the  contributory  negligence  of  the  em- 
ploye, for  while  he  may  be  guilty  of  con- 
tributory negligence  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  law,  if  the  dangers  follow, 
though  he  uses  ordinary  care,  it  is  a fair 
hazard  in  considering  the  risks  of  the 
service.  It  is  more  to  the  purpose,  how- 
ever, that  wljen  it  is  alleged  by  a body 
of  men  that  their  employment  is  pecu- 
liarly hazardous,  and  it  appears  that  it  is 
peculiarly  hazardous  only  because  of  the 
risks  the  men  take,  after  repeated  warn- 
ings and  in  violation  of  orders,  it  is  not 
fair  to  urge  that  the  accidents  follow- 
ing such  carelessness  constitute  a fair 
ground  for  the  argument  that  they  are 
the  legitimate  hazards  of  the  business. 


mine;  strike  commission 


As  to  Disease. 

As  to  the  diseases  incident  to  the  em- 
ployment, shortening  the  trade  life,  there 
are  many  matters  worthy  of  considera- 
tion. We  have  had  the  benefit  of  a good 
deal  of  testimony  upon  this  subject.  Some 
of  it  has  been  extravagant  and  most  un- 
reliable. I have  lived  in  the  coal  region 
all  my  life,  and  have  a considerable  ac- 
quaintance among  the  people  employed 
in  and  about  the  mines,  and  it  has  great- 
ly surprised  me  to1  hear,  for  the  first 
time,  that  the  life  of  the  miner  is  shorter 
than  the  life  of  the  average  worker,  and 
that  it  is  so  much  more  unhealthful.  I 
do  not  believe  it,  cither,  and  the  evidence 
does  not  warrant  any  such  assertion.  Let 
us  look  at  this  for  a moment.  After  the 
testimony  of  the  physicians  on  behalf  of 
the  mine  workers,  at  Scranton,  and  the 
exaggerated  statements  there  made  as  to 
the  unhealthfulness  of  the  occupation,  re- 
sembling the  truth  only  as  mist  resembles 
a thunderstorm,  the  Journal  of  the 
American  Medical  Association,  the  stand- 
ard authority  of  the  profession  in  this 
country,  presented  a very  well  considered 
editorial  in  its  issue  of  December  6th, 
1902  (Vol.  39,  No.  ."3,  page  1460,  published 
at  Chicago),  upon  the  “Healthfulness  cf 
Coal  Mining.”  It  alleged  that  “aside  from 
accidents,  coal  mining  is  said  to  be  a 
distinctly  healthful  occupation  by  those 
who  have  considered  the  subject.  In 
England,  the  mortality  of  all  males  in 
Great  Britain  was  18.74  per  thousand,  out 
of  which  .87  were  due  to  accidents,  leav- 
ing 17.87  due  to  what  may  be  termed 
natural  causes.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
mortality  among  coal  miners,  from  all 
causes,  for  the  same  period,  was  only 
12.35  per  thousand,  that  due  to  accidents 
being  given  as  2.00,  making  the  total 
death  rate  due  to  natural  causes,  10.15 
per  thousand.”  The  editorial  continues; 
“We  have  not  the  corresponding  authori- 
tative figures  and  statements  for  the 
American  coal  miners,  but  we  have  the 
mortality  statistics  as  given  in  the 
United  States  census  reports.  Taking  the 
four  chief  fatal  disorders  or  classes  of 
diseases,  we  find  the  diseases  distinctly 
favorable  to  the  miners.  Thus,  they  lose 
by  consumption  less  than  one-tenth  of 
their  total  mortality,  as  against  one- 
mnth  among  farmers  and  agricultural 
workers,  and  one-eighth  among  profes- 
sional men,  merchants  and  common  la- 
borers, and  between  one-sixth  and  one- 
seventh  in  manufacturing  employes. 
Their  proportion  of  death  from  pneu- 
monia was  about  the  same  as  that  among 
agriculturists  and  common  laborers. 

* * * It  would  seem  probable,  the 
miner's  life  being  a laborious  one,  it 
would  only  cover  a certain  number  of  the 
years  of  greatest  vigor  and  that  this 
wculd  affect  the  statistics  of  mortality. 
To  some  extent  this  must  be  admitted, 
yet  we  find  in  the  census  mortality  statis- 
tics nearly  one-seventh  of  the  deaths  of 
miners  are  at  65  and  over,  and  more  than 
one-fourth  over  55.”  Bishop  Spalding,  in 
his  book  on  Socialism  and  Labor  (page 
113),  says;  “The  manual  laborer  is,  I 
suppose,  in  his  prime  from  the  age  of  25 
to  35  years.  He  is  old  before  he  is  50.” 
Miner  in  Favorable  Class. 

Assuming  the  correctness  of  this  obser- 
vation, the  miner  is  in  a distinctly  favor- 
able class  as  compared  with  the  manual 
laborer  generally,  and  is  hedged  about 
by  no  such  limitations.  And  I submit 
that  the  concensus  of  opinion  among  all 
the  witnesses  who  have  testified  before 
ycu,  and  your  observation  of  the  wit- 
nesses themselves,  disprove  the  assertion 


217 


as  to  the  length  of  the  trade  life,  and 
refute  the  claims  of  the  other  side.  The.  e 
seems  to  be  no  real  justification  for  pla'  - 
ing  the  occupation  of  mining  among  tl  e 
dangerous  trades,  other  than  the  acci- 
dents. As  Doctor  Wainwright  tells  you, 
"From  its  medical  aspects,  it  is  an  or- 
dinary occupation.  It  requires  an  ordi- 
nary, but  not  an  excessive  muscular  ex- 
ercise. It  is  in  an  equable  temperature, 
and,  at  present,  at  least,  is,  generally- 
speaking,  under  good  venti'ation.  The 
miners  are  not  crowded  as  in  shops  and 
factories,  and  the  amount  of  air  sup- 
plied to  a given  portion  of  the  mine  cor- 
rectly regulated,  according  to  the  num- 
ber of  miners  there.  The  teachings  of  all 
the  authorities  who  have  written  on  the 
subject,  the  editorials  of  the  medical 
journals,  the  statistics  in  this  country'  ai  d 
in  England,  all  support  this  view.”  The 
testimony  on  the  other  side,  especially 
of  the  doctors  called  at  Scranton,  Is 
nothing  more  or  less  than  a libel  upon  a 
large  portion  of  our  community.  It  rep- 
resented them  as  cripples,  devoid  of  am- 
bition, eking  out  a now  miserable  exist- 
ence, pitiable  objects,  and  was  intendfd 
to  give  you  the  impression  that  the  large 
proportion  of  the  inmates  of  the  chari- 
table institutions  were  the  graduates  of 
this  industry.  Everything  was  stated  in 
the  superlative,  degree.  An  examination 
of  these  institutions  by  physicians,  at  our 
request,  disclosed  the  unfairness  of  these 
statements  and  the  impropriety  of  a 1 
their  figures.  There  was  revealed  a con- 
dition quite  opposite  to  that  stated  by 
the  mine  workers.  A very  small  number 
of  the  inmates  were  found  to  have  been 
formerly  employed  about  the  mines,  ai.d 
of  them  only  a few  were  suffering  with 
miners’  asthma,  or  any  disease  of  the 
respiratory  organs.  Sciatica  and  rheuma- 
tism and  consumption  were  rare,  and  over 
ninety  per  cent,  of  the  inmates  of  the 
largest  institution  visited,  the  one  pro- 
viding for  the  poor  of  the  city  of  Scran- 
ton, themselves  traced  their  present  con- 
dition to  alcoholism  rather  than  to  th.  ir 
employment.  Anthrocosis  or  presence  in 
the  lung  tissue  of  particles  of  coal  caus- 
ing discoloration,  exists  undoubtedly.  Its 
presence,  all  agree,  is  not  often  an  ir,  i- 
tant.  It  may  tend  to  impair  the  lung  tis- 
sue, so  as  to  render  it  more  susceptible 
to  bronchial  affections  and  less  able  to 
resist  disease.  This  is  the  maximum  that 
can  fairly  be  said  and  then  you  have  said 
it  all.  Miners'  asthma,  so-called,  appears 
now  and  then  among  the  workers  of  the 
mines.  In  almost  every  instance,  how- 
ever, its  origin  is  to  be  traced  to  condi- 
tions existing  twenty  or  thirty  years  ago. 
Among  the  dust-breathing  occupations, 
under  present  conditions  and  present 
methods,  mining  is  among  the  lowest  in 
the  mortality  rate.  The  mine  workers 
found  in  the  charitable  institutions  wt  re 
all  over  50  years  of  age  and  many  were 
over  70.  In  an  institution  providing  f<  r 
the  poor  of  a territory  embracing  neaily 
two  hundred  thousand  people,  with  a 
total  of  inmates  of  something  less  than 
five  hundred,  less  than  ten  per  cent,  were 
mine  workers.  That  tells  the  story,  and 
is  worth  volumes  of  statistics  and  figures. 
They  who  enter  this  employment,  all  the 
evidence  shows,  prefer  it  to  any  other. 

Occupation  Preferred. 

That  is  the  best  answer  to  the  claims  of 
the  other  side  as  to  the  difficulties  su'- 
rounding  it.  They  even  seem  to  prefer  it 
to  the  pictured  paradise  of  the  bitumin- 
ous districts.  The  gates  of  Castle  Garden 
swing  inwards  continuously  and  never 
outward  for  an  Irish,  Welsh  or  English 


218 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


miner  returning  to  his  native  land  to 
escape  the  horrors  of  the  work  in  old 
Luzerne  county,  Pennsylvania.  The  pic- 
ture is  horribly  distorted.  It  does  not  tell 
you  the  truth.  With  the  present  condi- 
tions of  ventilation,  with  the  facilities  for 
change  of  clothing  and  the  rooms  pro- 
vided for  this  purpose  with  hot  and  cold 
water  for  washing,  with  the  comparative 
short  hours  of  service,  you  cannot  help 
but  find  that,  as  a class,  mine  workeis 
compare  favorably  with  men  in  most 
other  occupations  on  the  score  of  health, 
and  are  certainly  as  favorably  situated 
as  the  employes  of  the  other  industries 
in  the  same  territory.  This  is  one  of  the 
questions  presented  as  to  which  there  is 
a great  liability  to  hysteria.  It  seems  to 
be  popular  just  now  to  assume  that  this 
industry  presents  extraordinary  hazards, 
and  entails  great  suffering  and  want.  If 
you  were  permitted  to  attend  one  of  our 
eisteddfods  in  Scranton  or  Wilkes-Barre, 
and  see  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of 
the  employes  of  this  industry  in  compe- 
tition, in  choral  unions  and  vocal  music 
of  the  highest  order,  you  would  have  an 
object  lesson  and  it  would  satisfy  you,  I 
believe,  that  the  trade  life  in  this  busi- 
ness is  neither  short  nor  prejudicial  to 
• good  health,  and  not  deleterious  to  the 
respiratory  organs  or  the  bronchial  tubes. 

But,  they  say  that  the  annual  earnings 
of  the  mine  workers  are  insufficient  to 
maintain  the  American  standard  of  living. 
Fortunately  for  all  of  us,  that  has  been 
interpreted  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  he  has 
given  us  the  benefit  of  his  opinion  that 
six  hundred  dollars  a year  would  permit 
the  mine  workers  to  live  in  a manner 
conformable  to  American  standards  (P. 
246).  The  earnings  of  the  contract  miners 
for  the  year  1901,  in  the  employ  of  the 
companies  I represent,  averaged  approxi- 
mately six  hunded  and  fifty  dollars,  and 
do  not  forget  that  this  represents  the 
earnings  of  those  who  worked  some  in 
each  half  month  of  the  yer.r;  and  it  fur- 
ther represents  the  limit  imposed  by  the 
men,  and  not  by  the  companies,  for  that 
year.  Perhaps  I ought  not  to  say  the 
men,  because  many  of  them  dislike  this 
restriction  and  have  expressed  this  to 
you  in  no  uncertain  terms.  I shall  refer 
to  this  restriction  later.  I speak  of  it, 
from  time  to  time  in  my  argument,  be- 
cause I want  to  impress  upon  you  all 
along  that  when  you  take  up  this  ques- 
tion of  wages,  you  ought  not  to  ignore 
that  which  I said  In  opening  the  cases 
of  the  Hillside  and  the  Pennsylvania  Coal 
companies— that  the  union  had  itself  re- 
stricted the  earning  capacity  of  the  men 
at  least  as  much  as,  if  not  more,  than 
the  twenty  per  cent,  advance  asked  upon 
the  prices  paid  for  their  work  during  the 
year  1901. 

The  lists  of  the  parents  of  children 
working  in  and  about  the  mines,  filed 
with  the  commission  on  behalf  of  several 
of  the  companies  in  the  northern  field, 
show  the  absurdity  of  the  claim  advanced 
here— that  the  wages  of  the  Mine  Work- 
ers are  so  low  that  their  children  are^  pre- 
maturely forced  into  the  breakers.  Theie 
may  be  a few.  who,  by  reason  of  habits 
or  exceptionally  hard  places  to  work,  are 
limited  in  their  earning  capacity  so  as  to 
require  the  growing  children  to  assist  in 
the  support  of  the  family.  The  vast  ma- 
jority, however,  have  had  the  opportun- 
ity, for  the  past  two  years,  of  earning 
enough  to  put  themselves  and  their  fam- 
ilies in  a reasonably  satisfactory  condi- 
tion, so  that  their  children  might  secure 
the  educational  advantages  offered  thqm, 
the  family  at  the  same  time  to  maintain 
the  American  standard  of  living. 


Miners  Limit  Earnings. 

Throughout  the  discussion  as  to  the 
rates  of  wages,  no  matter  how  it  may  be 
presented,  whether  by  figures,  statistics, 
oral  testimony  or  argument,  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  the 
annual  earnings  of  the  mine  workers  are 
limited  by  the  men  themselves.  I do  not 
overlook  the  testimony  that  here  and 
there  a contract  miner  has  difficulty  in 
securing  as  many  cars  as  he  could  cut 
coal  for;  that  there  are  stoppages,  for 
which  he  is  not  responsible;  that  railroad 
ears  are  not  furnished  in  sufficient  quan- 
tities at  times,  to  enable  the  breaker  to 
work  and  that  this,  in  turn,  prevents  the 
distribution  of  a sufficient  number  of  mine 
cars  to  the  chambers.  I am  perfectly 
willing  that  you  should  take  into  consid- 
eration all  the  evidence  offered  on  the 
other  side  as  to  the  efforts  made  to  equal- 
ize the  distribution  of  cars.  And  after 
all  this,  it  remains  clearly  established  be- 
fore you,  by  indubita.blo  testimony,  by 
writings  and  warnings  and  resolutions 
and  the  action  of  the  locals  and  the  men 
themselves,  that  since  the  advent  of  the 
union  the  earning  capacity  of  the  con- 
tract miner  has  been  limited  and  instead 
of  the  union  being  an  advantage  to  him 
it  has  worked  to  his  disadvantage  in  re- 
stricting his  earning  capacity.  I stand 
ready  to  prove  these  assertions  by  the 
record.  I do  not  .charge  this  upon  the 
great  body  of  the  miners  themseives. 
They  are  not  responsible  for  it  in  a sense. 
They  do  not  understand  why  it  was  done. 
They  are  not  familiar  with  the  socialistic 
theeories  of  some  of  the  leaders  of  the 
organization.  Prior  to  the  advent  of  the 
union,  when  the  mines  were  working  three 
days  a week,  the  miners  working  in  low 
veins  requiring  rock  to  be  blasted  up 
and  down,  in  order  to  make  height  for 
the  cars  to  enter  their  places,  would  ar- 
range to  blast  the  coal  during  the  day3 
the  breaker  was  working,  figuring  on  go- 
ing in  on  idle  days  to  blast  the  rock.  By 
this  method  these  men,  working  in  the 
thin  veins,  were  practically  working  full 
time,  for  they  were  given  allowances  and 
yardage  for  the  rock.  We  have  shown 
you  that  the  locals,  in  many  places,  have 
issued  orders  preventing  men  from  work- 
ing on  idle  days.  The  result  of  this  i3 
that  when  the  breakers  are  only  work- 
ing three  or  four  days  a week  the  con- 
tract miners  can  only  y ork  three  or  four 
days.  It  quite  frequently  happens  that  a 
miner  is  called  out  of  his  chamber  to  do 
company  work,  such  ns  driving,  timbering 
and  other  special  work.  In  the  good  old 
days  they  could  manage  to  have  coa> 
enough  down  in  their  chambers  so  the 
laborer  could  go  on  and  load  his  full 
shift,  and  the  miner  would  receive  his 
pay  for  the  full  shift  of  coal  as  well  as 
his  day's  pay  for  the  company  work  be 
was  engaged  in  performing.  This  is  also 
prohibited  by  the  union  and,  of  course,  it 
results  in  a restriction  in  the  earning  ca- 
pacity of  the  miner.  The  union  does  not 
seem  to  have  any  control  over  the  boys, 
drivers  and  runners,  who  are  permitted  to 
share  in  its  membership,  and  the  result 
of  this  is  that  the  miners'  earnings  are 
restricted  because  the  boys,  apparently, 
are  under  the  impression  that  they  are 
not  to  drive  the  required  number  of  cars 
to  constitute  the  minimum  day's  work, 
for  if  they  do  this  they  will  be  doing 
more  work  than  the  union  requires  of 
them.  It  seems  like  descending  to  partic- 
ulars but  it  serves  to  illustrate  the  ten- 
dency of  the  union  and.  therefore,  I ask 
you  to  consider  for  a moment  the  testi- 
mony af  Richard  Walsh,  a union  miner, 


in  the  employ  of  the  Lackawanna  com- 
pany, of  good  standing  in  the  organiza- 
tion, who  says  upon  page  C192  of  the 
record: 

Testimony  of  Walsh. 

“Q.  Take  it  prior  to  1902,  what  would 
you  say  your  earning  capacity  was  as 
compared  with  today?  A ft  exceeaeo 
what  it  is  today.'' 

“Q.  What  was  that?  Just  tell  me  com- 
mission. A.  Well,  we  have  lost  an  awful 
lot  of  time  since  the  union  came;  lost  an 
awful  lot  of  time.” 

‘‘Q.  What  restrictions  do  they  place  on 
you  in  the  number  of  cars  you  are  able 
to  load?  A.  In  the  vein  I work  in  we 
loaded  seven  cars  for  a shift,  now  it  is 
six  cars,  a difference  cf  one  car  on  a 
shift.” 

“Q.  Who  makes  It  the  six?  A.  The 
union.” 

"Q.  And  you  used  to  be  able  to  load 
seven?  A.  Tes,  always.” 

“Q.  What  did  you  used  to  be  able  to 
earn  a month  prior  to  1900?  A.  We  va- 
ried. Sometimes  they  would  work  four 
days  a week,  sometimes  five  and  some- 
times six.  If  I worked  from  sixteen  to 
eighteen  days  in  a month  I could  aver- 
age from  $65  to  $75.  and  sometimes  I made 
from  $80  to  $90.  according  to  the  place;  I 
have  made  $80  to  $90  in  good  places.” 
(Page  9119). 

”Q.  Under  the  old  way  could  you  go  in 
when  the  breaker  was  idle  and  take  down 
the  rock?  A.  Yes,  sir.” 

“Q.  So  you  could  have  your  coal  free’ 
A.  Yes,  sir.” 

“Q.  Can  you  do  it  now?  A.  No,  sir.” 
"Q.  Why  can  you  not  do  it  now?  A. 
Because  I am  restricted. 

”Q.  Restricted  by  f\hom?  A.  By  the 
union.” 

"Q.  Why  is  it  they  restrict  you;  you  are 
a member  of  it.  I wish  you  would  tell 
me  why  they  restrict  you  in  this  way?  A. 
That  is  something  I cannot  tell  the  com- 
mission. I cannot  understand  it  myself.” 
This  evidence  appearing,  at  the  request 
of  Mr.  Darrow  we  furnished  and  filed  a 
statement  of  this  man's  earnings  for  five 
years  prior  to  the  advent  of  the  union 
and  it  proves  his  assertion.  And  now  to 
fasten  this  on  the  union  absolutely.  The 
same  witness  said  that  it  was  fixed  by 
tion.  (P.  6137). 

”Q.  By  motion?  Well,  but  don't  some 
body  get  up  and  give  the  reason  why  they 
want  to  restrict  you  so  you  could  not 
load  up  so  many?  A.  Yes,  they  always 
considered  the  seventh  car  an  objection- 
able car,  that  is  the  seven  car  shift  and 
wanted  to  do  away  with  the  seventh  car 
right  along.” 

The  Chairman: 

“Q.  Why?  A.  They  claimed  that  it  is 
too  much;  that  six  cars  is  enough  for  a 
shift.” 

"Q.  Too  much  for  what?  A.  Too  much 
for  one  day's  work.” 

"Q.  What  difference  does  It  make  to 
them?  A.  It  should  not  make  any  differ- 
ence, they  get  the  same  price  for  one  as 
the  other.” 

”Q.  What  difference  does  It  make  to 
anybody  how  many  cars  you  can  get  out 
within  a reasonable  number* of  hours?  A. 
It  should  not  make  any  difference,  but 
the  difference  is  right  there  that  they 
will  not  allow  it.” 

Case  of  Restriction. 

One  more  case  of  restriction:  Patrick 

Mitchell,  a witness  for  the  Pennsylvania 
Coal  company,  testified  (page  5-13S): 

"A.  The  breaker  was  knocked  off  pne 


day  and  it  was  my  turn  to  go  on  the 
night  shift.  I was  cross-shifting  a slope, 
and  I went  to  work  that  night  and 
worked,  me  and  the  men,  and  the  local 
called  me  that  night  and  fined  us  $5  for 
working  because  the  breaker  did  not 
work. 

“Q.  Were  you  a member  of  the  union 
at  that  time?  A.  Yes,  sir,  and  a good 
member,  too;  always  paid  up  to  that 
time.” 

"Q.  What  was  the  theory  the  local  ad- 
vanced; what  was  the  claim  why  you 
ought  not  to  work  while  the  breaker  was 
not  working?  A.  They  did  not  want  any- 
body to  go  in  and  do  night  work,  only 
breaker  time.” 

"Q.  Can  you  give  me  any  explana- 
tion for  this,  what  their  explanation  was 
to  you?  A.  The  explanation  was  I was  to 
hold  one  man  down  to  equal  the  other, 
for  one  man  to  send  out  just  as  much  as 
the  other.” 

“Q.  What  restriction  is  there,  if  any, 
as  to  cars  since  the  advent  of  the  union? 
A.  Since  the  1900  strike  they  had  a resmlar 
basis  of  loading  so  many  and  could  not 
get  the  laborers  to  furnish  much  more.” 

‘‘Q.  Who  furnished  this  basis;  where 
did  you  get  this  basis?  A.  I do  not  know. 
They  claimed  the  union  wanted  us  to  load 
seven  or  eight  cars  for  a shift.  Before 
we  used  to  load  ten  or  eleven.” 

When  Mr.  Darrow  was  cross-examining 
him  the  question  was  asked  him: 

"Q.  There  were  plenty  of  cars  there  but 
the  laborers  would  not  give  them  to  you? 
A.  Yes,  sir.” 

“Q.  Did  you  every  say  anything  to  the 
foreman  about  it?  A.  I did  once.  He  told 
me  he  was  afraid  to  discharge  them  for 
fear  there  would  be  a strike.” 

Look  at  the  posters  they  put  up  at  the 
collieries  where  they  pay  by  weight, 
limiting  the  amount  of  topping  on  the 
cars,  although  the  evidence  discloses  a 
very  much  higher  topping  could  safely  be 
put  on  these  cars,  and  although  the  men 
are  paid  for  every  pound  of  coal  the  cars 
contain.  Whatever  may  be  the  motive 
on  the  part  of  the  union,  the  evidence  is 
overwhelming  that  the  result  is  a re- 
striction on  the  part  of  the  industrious 
miner,  limiting  the  amount  of  work  and 
the  consequent  wages  resulting  therefrom, 
shrivelling  his  powers  and  reducing  him 
to  the  dead  level  of  his  lazy  and  indif- 
ferent associate.  This  cannot  be  blotted 
out  from  the  record.  It  appears  in  the 
testimony  of  every  company  and  every 
employer  of  labor  in  the  region.  It  is 
testified  to  by  the  general  superintend- 
ents, the  under  officials  and  the  men 
themselves.  How  can  you  escape  the 
conclusion  that  it  would  be  better  for  you 
to  say  to  the  men,  on  the  one  side,  take 
off  the  shackles  you  have  yourselves 
placed  upon  the  men,  before  you  ask  us 
to  increase  the  wages  at  the  hands  of 
your  employer?  I do  not  want  to  enter 
Into  a discussion  of  socialism.  But  the 
action  of  the  union  in  the  matter  of  the 
earning  capacity  of  its  membership  is 
very  like  the  socialistic  theory  as  de- 
scribed by  all  the  writers  on  that  sub- 
ject. It  incarnates  the  determination  of 
the  average  laborer  to  prevent  the  rise 
of  the  highly  capable  and  ambitious  la- 
borer. Ignoring  the  differences  which  ex- 
ist among  men,  they  demand  that  the 
sacrifice  be  measured  by  the  unit  of 
labor,  for  which  every  one  is  to  receive 
th%  same  wages.  But  if  an  hour’s  labor 
in  one  occupation,  and  by  one  man, 
ought  to  count  for  more  than  in  another 
and  by  another  man,  the  managers  of  the 
scheme  themselves  undertake  to  measure 


MINB  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

the  difference,  and  not  every,  person  for 
himself.  The  thing  deemed  socially  ne- 
cessary having  been  determined  by  them, 
the  laborer  must  do  the  work  under  their 
direction,  with  restrictions  they  throw 
about  him,  whether  he  is  willing  or  not, 
for  otherwise,  as  they  say,  society  will 
suffer.  In  a state  of  freedom,  self-in- 
terest is  the  goad,  and  every  person  can 
prick  himself  much  or  little.  In  a state 
of  slavery,  the  master  and  overseer  ap- 
ply the  goads.  There  are  those  who  pre- 
fer this  sort  of  slavery  rather  than  in- 
dividual freedom.  That  all  men  are 
exactly  alike,  or  so  nearly  alike  that 
the  difference  between  them  may  be  ig- 
nored, that  all  should  be  reduced  to  the 
dead  level  of  the  mass,  is  a fallacy.  Men 
employed  in  this  occupation  differ  in 
their  mental  and  physical  powers,  natural 
and  acquired.  They  differ  not  only  in 
ability,  but  in  their  feelings  and  tastes 
and  inclinations,  capacity  for  labor  and 
quickness  of  perception.  There  is  a 
material  difference  between  an  idiot  and 
Sir  Isaac  Newton,  and  between  a Sam- 
son and  one  who  has  the  rickets,  with 
gradations  between  the  two  extremes, 
and  a great  difference  between  races  of 
men.  Adam  Smith  undertakes  to  argue 
that  the  difference  of  natural  talents  in 
different  men  is,  in  reality,  much  less 
than  we  are  aware  of.  A person  of  equal 
authority  with  Adam  Smith,  however,  to 
wit,  the  pope,  in  his  encyclical  letter  on 
the  condition  of  labor,  says:  “It  is  im- 
possible to  reduce  human  society  to  a 
level,  because  there  naturally  exists 
among  mankind  innumerable  differences 
of  the  most  important  kind.  People  differ 
in  capability,  in  diligence,  in  health  and 
in  strength.”  One  man  anticipates  his 
future  wants  and  will  not  wait  until  the 
spur  of  necessity  is  actually  applied.  An- 
other man  cannot  restrain  his  desires, 
has  no  frugality  and  lives  in  poverty,  be- 
cause of  his  wasteful  extravagance.  Still 
another  regards  labor  as  a dreadful  sac- 
rifice, and  will  suffer  for  want  of  food, 
clothing  and  shelter,  rather  than  undergo 
the  great  pain  which  he  would  suffer  to 
satisfy  his  wants  by  his  own  industry. 

Purpose  of  Socialism. 

This  being  manifestly  true,  it  seems  to 
me,  the  “hypothetical  economic  man”  is 
destroyed,  and  that  system  of  economics 
which  is  founded  upon  the  tacit  or  ex- 
press assumption  that  all  men  are  ex- 
actly alike  is  reduced  to  rubbish.  Social- 
ism proposes  to  establish  an  equality 
among  unequal  men,  by  reducing  them  to 
the  dead  level  of  this  possible  majority. 
Instead  of  allowing  every  one  to  deter- 
mine for  himself  what  he  wants  to  do,  it 
is  to  be  done  for  him;  he  must  perform 
an  allotted  task  for  an  allotted  reward. 
That  is  nothing  but  slavery.  What  is  the 
theory  of  the  union,  if.  it  is  not  this? 
It  says  to  the  capable,  intelligent  and  in- 
dustrious miner,  who  desires  to  cut 
enough  coal  to  load  seven  or  eight  cars, 
and  can  get  the  laborers  to  load  it,  you 
must  only  load  six,  because  you  are,  in- 
directly, robbing  your  brother  in  the 
adjoining  chamber,  who  has  not  the 
capacity  to  cut  more  than  enough  coal  to 
load  five  cars.  It  is  not  fair  for  you  to 
get  ahead  of  him.  More  than  that,  if 
you  load  seven  cars,  your  neighbor  may 
not  have  more  than  five  sent  into  his 
chamber.  It  is  immaterial  whether  that 
is  all  he  wants  or  not.  This  is  a recon- 
struction of  the  social  and  economic 
status  of  the  mine  worker,  and  works  a 
revolution.  It  is  not  satisfactory  to  any- 
body. It  may  be  endured  by  the  mem- 
bers oC  the  union;  It  is  not  approved  of 


219 


by  him.  It  is  an  attempt  to  fasten  upon 
this  region  a theory  the  propriety  of 
which  is  questioned  by  everybody  who 
has  any  familiarity  with  the  industry. 
And  there  is  no  doubt  about  its  imprac- 
ticability and  the  ill  effects  upon  the  nr<  n 
resulting  therefrom.  It  will  be  said  that 
this  action  on  the  part  of  the  union  is 
simply  to  afford  a fair  distribution  <.f 
cars  to  the  men,  or,  in  other  words, 
an  equal  opportunity  to  all  and  that  it 
is,  on  that  account,  desirable  and  com- 
mendable, and  that  the  companies,  them- 
selves, restrict  the  earning  capacity  of  the 
men  fully  as  much  as,  if  not  more  than, 
the  union  by  its  official  action.  I deny 
both.  There  are  times  when  the  men 
cannot  get  the  cars  they  ought  to  have 
There  are  days  of  restriction  and  re- 
striction by  the  company  or  by  unavoid- 
able accidents,  or  other  causes.  There  is 
no  doubt  about  that.  The  rules  of  tho 
union,  however,  it  is  to  be  observed,  ap- 
ply under  any  and  all  conditions,  at  any 
and  all  times  and,  practically,  at  all 
places.  Some  of  the  iccals  have  not 
adopted  any  such  rules.  Many,  however, 
have.  There  seems  to  be  no  settled  pol- 
icy on  the  part  of  this  organization.  The 
district  leaders,  apparently,  knew  nothing 
about  the  action  of  the  locals,  at  any  rate 
they  have  thrown  no  light  upon  it  here. 
They  have  given  you  the  benefit  neither 
of  their  presence  nor  their  testimony,  and 
those  higher  than  they  have  made  no  ef- 
fort to  explain  this  attitude,  other  than 
that  it  was  for  the  purposes  of  equalizing 
the  distribution  of  cars  or,  putting  it  in 
another  way,  giving  everybody  an  equal 
chance.  But  everybody  is  not  able  to 
avail  himself  of  the  equal  chance,  and  to 
confine  the  industrious,  frugal  and  am- 
bitious worker  within  the  limits  satisfac- 
tory to  the  other  kind  is  to  reduce  him 
to  a state  of  slavery,  and  one  of  the  as- 
tonishing things  in  all  this  inquiry  is  the 
acquiescence  of  the  men  in  any  such  rule 
of  conduct.  By  some  people  freedom  is 
highly  esteemed.  I have  read,  however, 
that  the  Israelites,  although  fed  from 
heaven,  wept  when  they  remembered  the 
fish  and  the  melons  and  the  onions  and 
the  garlic  on  which  tiiey  were  fed  by  th  Ir 
masters  in  Egypt.  And  the  Mine  Work- 
ers seem  to  be  willing  to  be  regimented 
and  work  under  overseers  as  long  as  they 
are  of  their  own  selection,  no  matter  how 
they  apply  the  lash.  The  present  organ- 
ism fastening  itself  upon  the  northern 
coal  field,  in  so  far  as  this  feature  of  its 
life  is  concerned,  seems  to  be  a strung 
sort  of  an  octopus,  all  legs  and  arms  and 
no  head.  I do  not  dispute  the  light  of 
men  to  organize  and  I hold  no  brief 
against  organized  labor.  The  methods  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers,  however,  seem 
to  be  exquisitely  adapted  to  degrade  in- 
telligent labor,  to  paralyze  honest  in- 
dustry, to  crush  spirit,  hope  and  ambi- 
tion. There  has  just  passed  away,  in  the 
fulness  of  years,  in  the  love  and  rever- 
ence of  his  countrymen,  that  eminent  citi- 
zen and  publicist,  Abram  S.  Hewitt.  His 
words  of  wisdom,  spoken  just  before  his 
death,  come  to  us  now  with  renewed 
force  and  impressiveness  Speaking  the 
other  day  upon  the  eightieth  birthday  of 
John  Fritz,  who  had  risen  from  the  work- 
ing ranks.  Mr.  Hewitt  said:  "That  a boy 
born  in  humble  life,  with  no  advantages 
of  education  or  opportunities  for  position, 
without  influential  friends  or  the  favor- 
ing accidents  of  fortune,  should  be  able  to 
advance  steadily  in  usefulness,  power  and 
the  respect  of  his  fellow  men  until  by 
common  consent  he  occupies  the  first 
plaqe  In  the  domain  of  practical  Industry 


220 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


with  which  he  has  been  connected,  gives 
conclusive  evidence  that  political  insti- 
tutions which  afford  free  play  to  indi- 
vidual ambition,  industry,  ability,  and 
strict  integrity,  are  worthy  of  all  loyalty 
and  should  be  cherished  and  preserved  at 
all  costs  and  hazards.” 

Spirit  of  Labor. 

The  whole  spirit  of  labor  dictating  to 
labor  what  it  shall  and  shall  not  do  as 
to  hours  or  prices  or  any  other  relations 
or  duties  of  life,  involves  treason  to 
every  principle  of  individual  liberty 
When  the  right  of  free  action  shall  be 
suppressed  the  possibility  of  a career  like 
John  Fritz’  will  be  destroyed.  So  I say 
when  men  plead  for  higher  wages  and 
allege  that  their  earning  capacity  is  lim- 
ited by  their  employment,  and  it  appears 
as  clearly  as  it  appears  here,  that  they 
themselves  limit  their  earnings  by  their 
own  conduct  (and  1 am  speaking  now 
of  the  contract  miners,  who.  alone,  are 
asking  for  an  increase  in  wages),  this 
self-restriction  is  a legitimate  argument 
against  their  demands  and,  it  seems  to 
me,  it  ought  to  have  the  very  greatest 
weight  in  your  considerations. 

The  Second  Demand. 

The  second  demand, as  presented,  shows 
the  dominating  power  ol  the  bituminous 
mine  worker  over  his  anthracite  brother. 
I do  not  now  refer  to  the  engineers,  fire- 
men and  pumpmen.  They  are  in  a class 
by  themselves.  There  are  many  places 
where  the  firemen  ought  to  be  given  an 
eight  hour  day,  perhaps  in  the  majority 
of  places,  and  I have  no  doubt  the  com- 
panies would  be  perfectly  willing  to  grant 
it.  The  engineers  and  pumpmen,  how- 
ever, are  differently  situated  and,  aside 
from  the  great  difference  of  opinion 
among  the  witnesses  as  to  the  propriety 
of  an  eight  hour  day  for  them,  there  is, 
I admit,  room  for  argument  both  ways. 
It  is  my  impression,  however,  speaking 
for  our  district,  that  the  engineers  would 
far  prefer  to  remain  on  their  present 
hours,  and  I think  the  reason  given  by 
Mr.  Morgan,  for  the  Lackawanna  com- 
pany, satisfactorily  explains  their  atti- 
tude. This  demand,  aside  from  the  ex- 
cepted class  to  which  I have  referred, 
is  an  effort  to  fasten  upon  us  an  eight 
hour  day,  although  the  result  will  cripple 
the  industry,  affecting  the  companies 
and  the  men  most  disastrously.  What 
is  the  purpose  of  it?  Can  it  be  that  it  is 
a selfish,  farseeing.  comprehensive  scheme 
to  limit  the  production  and  thereby  keep 
up  the  same  wages  for  less  work?  In 
my  opening  statement  for  the  Hillside 
and  the  Pennsylvania  companies,  I called 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  nom- 
inal ten  hour  day  does  not  result  in  se- 
curing an  average  of  ever,  an  eight  hour 
day,  anti  never  has.  I said  that  you  could 
not  graft  such  a system  upon  the  an- 
thracite region,  the  breakers  never  aver- 
aging full  time,  without  serious  loss  to 
everybody;  and  the  proofs  have  support- 
ed my  statement.  The  average  breaker 
time  of  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and 
Western  Railroad  company  in  the  year 
1901  was  7.7  hours.  At  the  present  time 
the  miner  in  the  northern  field  does  not 
average  eight  hours  and  a large  propor- 
tion of  them  do  not  average  six  hours 
at  their  work.  It  seems  to  be  impossible 
to  run  the  breaker  every  day  in  a week 
for  ten  hours'  time,  whatever  may  be 
the  market  demands  for  coal.  There  are 
so  many  things  that  are  peculiar  to  the 
anthracite  region  in  the  way  of  hinder- 
ances  to  a ten  hour  day.  A car  may  be 


derailed  in  the  mine.  It  blocks  all  cars, 
as  it  is  a single  track  there,  and  the 
breaker  is  obliged  to  shut  down;  acci- 
dents may  occur  to  the  machinery  in 
the  breaker;  there  may  be  congestion 
in  traffic;  a thousand  and  one  things  are 
liable  to  occur.  The  result  of  it  all  is 
that  we  do  not  have  an  average  eight 
hour  day  week  in  and  week  out,  and 
never  had.  Now  suppose  you  say  that 
the  breaker  can  never  run  more  than 
eight  hours.  The  same  accidents  are 
likely  to  occur;  the  same  stoppages,  and 
the  same  causes  for  them  will  appear  in 
the  future  as  they  have  appealed  in  the 
past.  You  cannot  get  the  young  men  in 
the  breaker  to  work  more  than  eight 
hours’  time  even  though  you  are  willing 
to  pay  them  overtime,  as  soon  as  you 
have  persuasively  urged  a limitation  of 
eight  hours.  That  was  seen  within  the 
past  few  weeks.  It  was  testified  here 
that  they  could  not  get  the  breakers  to 
run  over  ten  hours,  notwithstanding  Mr 
Mitchell’s  letter  urging  the  men  to  co- 
operate with  the  companies  ir.  getting  out 
as  much  coal  as  possible.  They  simply 
would  not  work  more  than  the  maximum 
time  and  this  though  they  were,  of 
course,  to  be  paid  for  overtime.  Do  you 
not  see,  therefore,  that  a restriction  in 
the  number  of  hours  for  the  company 
men  means  a restriction  in  the  earning 
capacity  of  the  contract  miners  and 
means  no  advantage  to  the  company  men 
in  their  earning  capacity?  If  the  breaker 
worked  ten  hours  per  day  and  every  day 
in  the  week,  I could  see  some  propriety 
in  urging  the  reasons  that  have  been  filed 
to  support  this  demand.  They  might  say 
that  it  is  too  long  to  ask  a man  to  work; 
that  the  general  tendency  is  toward 
shorter  hours;  that  in  all  the  trades 
the  move  is  in  this  direction,  and  I am 
perfectly  willing  to  concede  this  for  the 
sake  of  argument.  But  it  proves  nothing. 

A Unique  Industry. 

This  industry  is  sui  generis.  The  gen- 
eral tendency  of  things  ought  not  to  be 
recorded  as  an  argument  in  favor  oi  a 
change  as  to  this  industry.  In  the  bitu- 
minous region  when  the  coal  comes  from 
the  mines  it  is  the  finished  product.  They 
have  no  breakers.  They  can  urge  an 
eight  hour  day  with  some  propriety  there. 
With  us  the  coal  when  it  comes  from  the 
mine,  is  the  raw  product.  The  impurities 
accompanying  it  in  the  car  necessitate 
further  preparatory  work  before  it  can 
be  sent  to  the  market.  It  seems  to  me 
the  bituminous  mine  workers,  who  are 
attempting  to  fasten  this  system  upon 
us,  ought  to  be  disciplined  by  the  union. 
I cannot  understand  why  the  men  are  so 
blind  to  their  own  self-interest  as  to 
urge  a theory  of  this  kind.  The  only  ef- 
fect of  this  cha.nge  being  to  secure  less 
pay  for  less  work,  as  Mr.  May  so  clearly 
showed,  why  should  labor  want  it?  Labor 
is  the  one  element  in  our  social  order  that 
cannot  afford  to  take  less  money  even 
though  it  gets  more  leisure.  It  needs  the 
money  more  than  the  leisure.  Two  addi- 
tional hours  of  a family's  society  are 
dearly  earned  if  that  family  is  to  forfeit 
every  comfort  these  two  hours’  labor 
would  add  to  the  necessities  of  life.  The 
scheme  is  impracticable.  Moreover,  there 
can  be  but  one  result  More  men  will  be 
required  to  do  the  same  work  at  times. 
No  one  man  will  benefit  by  It  and  no 
man’s  wages  will  he  increased.  The  com- 
panies will  be  the  sufferers,  that  is  all. 
To  pretend  that  the  absolute  annihilation 
of  one-fifth  of  the  time  each  day  of  an 
army  of  laborers  does  not  involve  in- 


creased cost  to  the  employer  is  simply 
to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  most  patent  facts 
and  conditions.  Experience  is  a pretty 
good  teacher,  notwithstanding  the  new 
fangled  notions  and  the  ideals  and  the- 
ories of  the  dreamers  seeking  after  Uto- 
pian schemes.  The  old  paths  are  the 
safest  and  the  best.  It  is  another  case 
of  "economic  hysterics." 

Eight  Hour  Dream. 

Admit  every  argument  for  an  eight  hour 
day  ever  advanced  the  country  over,  and 
I say  they  by  no  means  prove  the  pro- 
priety of  fastening  this  system  on  the 
anthracite  industry  of  Pennsylvania. 

Our  friends  on  the  other  side  have 
abandoned,  in  part  at  least,  their  third 
demand,  viz.,  the  adoption  of  a system 
by  which  coal  shall  be  weighed  and  paid 
for  by  weight  whenever  practicable,  tne 
minimum  rate  per  ton  to  be  sixty  cents 
for  a legal  ton  of  2.240  pounds,  the  dif- 
ferentials now  existing  at  the  various 
mines  to  be  maintained.  ’ For  they  have 
agreed  that  in  the  Reading  district, 
where  there  are  several  collieries  now 
under  the  car  system,  tney  may  continue 
that  practice  with  their  entire  acquies- 
cence. I suggest  they  abandon  it  entire- 
ly, for  the  introduction  of  any  new  sys- 
tem in  the  Northern  field,  requiring  uni- 
formity of  methods  and  practice  as  to 
payments,  will  prove  disastrous  and  un- 
satisfactory to  employer  and  employe 
alike.  I assert  that  a long  and  unfore- 
seen train  of  evils  must  follow  any  at- 
tempt to  disturb  our  present  conditions. 
You  might  as  well  prepare  to  go  into 
continuous  session  to  adjust  grievances 
and  disputes  without  number  if  you  im- 
pose the  experiment.  The  most  natural 
thing  in  the  world  upon  the  discovery  of 
social  discontent,  whether  widespread  or 
here  and  there  in  soots  and  among  a 
coterie  of  men.  is  to  charge  it  upon  the 
present  system.  One  does  not  have  to 
travel  far  to  meet  the  aged,  the  sick,  the 
beggar,  the  tramp,  and  even  the  honest 
and  industrious  man  unable  to  satisfy  his 
wants.  Injustice  is  frequent  enough 
everywhere.  The  socialist  finds  these 
facts  and  charges  them  to  the  present 
system.  That  system  is  before  all  eyes; 
it  is  something  tangible  to  strike.  But 
a natural  impulse  may  be  false.  It 
seems  to  me  to  be  so  here.  At  present 
It  is  not  the  system  of  payment  but  the 
other  matters  to  which  I have  referred 
that  affect  the  earning  capacity  of  the 
men. 

Customs  Should  Be  Respected. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  customs 
which  have  been  followed  for  fifty  years 
should  not  be  set  aside  hastily  and  in  the 
absence  of  the  most  careful  consideration 
as  to  the  effect  of  the  change  upon  all 
the  parties  interested.  The  mine  workers 
arbitrarily  demand  a readjustment  of  the 
method  of  paying  for  the  coal  mines  and 
specify  that  it  shall  be  at  a fixed  rate 
per  ton  of  twenty-two  hundred  and  forty 
pounds.  The  experience  of  fifty  years  in 
anthracite  mining  has  developed  four 
methods  of  paying  for  ccat  cutting:  First, 
a fixed  rate  per  miner’s  ton  or  miner’s 
weight;  second,  a rate  per  mine  car 
loaded;  third,  a payment  by  the  yard 
of  vein  removed;  fourth  a nnge  per  day 
worked.  No  one  of  these  has  been  found 
satisfactory  to  the  exclusion  of  all  the 
others.  Conditions  vary  in  each  vein  of 
each  mine  and  there  is  still  greater  va- 
riance between  different  mines.and  great- 
er yet  between  the  mines  of  different  dis- 
tricts. The  veins  may  be  thick  or  thin. 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


lie  regularly  or  irregularly,  they  may  be 
broken  or  faulted,  filled  with  veins  of 
slate  or  intrusions  of  rock,  have  large 
and  irregular  partings  of  low  grade  sul- 
phurous coal,  and  the  angle  of  inclination 
may  be  anywhere  from  horizontal  to  ver- 
tical. No  fixed  system  could  be  adopted 
which  would  be  alike  fair  to  the  opera- 
tors and  miners,  and  out  of  experience 
have  grown  the  present  methods.  Even 
they  do  not  completely  answer,  for  when 
a miner  meets  unusual  difficulties  in  his 
chamber  the  mine  foreman  uses  his  judg- 
ment and  gives  whatever  extra  allow- 
ance may  appear  proper  and  fair.  The 
first  method,  that  of  paying  so  much  per 
ton  or  by  the  “miner’s  weight,’’  is  fol- 
lowed in  a very  small  number,  about  8 
per  cent.,  all  of  the  mines  ir>  the  re- 
gion, namely,  the  collieries  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Coal  company,  the  Hillside  Coal 
and  Iron  company  and  those  of  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company  in  t.ie  upper 
end  of  the  Lacka  wanna  region  north'  of 
Olyphant.  In  nearly  every  case  the  veins 
worked  in  these  mines  are  fairly  regu- 
lar in  character.  Where  coal  is  paid  for 
this  way  twenty-seven  gross  hundred 
weight  has  been  established  In  recent 
years,  speaking  generally,  as  the  figure 
to  constitute  the  miner's  weight  or 
miner’s  ton,  because  when  the  wage  scale 
was  established  it  was  found  that  this 
weight  of  coal  was  required  to  yield,  af- 
ter the  slate,  rock  and  inferior  coal  were 
picked  out,  2,240  pounds  of  merchantable 
coal.  It  has  been  said  that  this  arbitrary 
weight  is  illegal  and  unjust  and  it  is 
called  by  the  mine  workers  the  “exces- 
sive ton.”  But  here  again  comes  in  the 
question  of  custom.  Even  our  govern- 
ment recognizes  three  different  weights 
to  a ton— 2,200  pounds,  2,240  pounds  and 
the  metric  ton  of  2,204  pounds.  Retail 
dealers  buy  2,240  pounds  in  a ton  and  sell 
2,0ot'  pounds.  In  each  case  it  is  a ton. 
Pig  iron  is  always  sold  at  2,268  pounds 
to  a ton,  and  practically  every  commod- 
ity of  this  character  is  given  an  arbitrary 
weight,  which  experience  has  shown  to 
be  sufficient  to  allow  for  losses  and  im- 
purities and  to  represent  a ton  of  legal 
standard  when  pure.  The  mine  ton, which 
was  first  demanded  by  the  mine  workers, 
that  is  the  run  of  mine  and  on  patterns 
again  after  the  custom  in  the  bitumin- 
ous region,  was  found  to  be  a very  un- 
fair proposition.  To  pay  for  each  ton  of 
2.24')  pounds  as  it  comes  from  the  mine 
as  if  it  were  a finished  product  is  mani- 
festly unfair.  Miner’s  ton,  as  it  is  called, 
is  a misnomer.  Miner’s  weight,  as  I sug- 
gested before,  has  a definite  and  fixed 
meaning  in  law  and  practice.  I called 
your  attention  to  the  case  of  Drake  vs. 
Lr.coe  (157  Pa.  page  17)  where  our  Su- 
preme court  has  defined  what  is  meant 
by  this  phrase.  It  is  there  interpreted 
to  mean  whatever  quantity  of  material, 
coal,  bone,  slate,  refuse,  etc.,  coming 
from  the  mine  that  is  required  and  nec- 
essary to  yield,  when  prepared  through 
the  breaker,  a ton  of  2,240  pounds  of 
pr<  pared  coal.  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  mine  workers  say  they  do  not  ask 
for  anything  except  coal,  it  is  a perfect- 
ly fair  answer  to  say  to  them  that  is 
just  what  they  have  been  paid  for  by 
the  Companies  paying  by  weight.  And 
they  have  the  advantage  nowadays  of 
sending  out  hundreds  of  pounds  of  mater- 
ial more  than  in  past  years  for  which 
they  are  credited  by  weight,  owing  to  the 
utilization  of  the  smaller  sizes  below  pre- 
pared. And  I want  to  say  that  this  more 
than  offsets  the  larger  quantity  required 
to  yield  a ton  for  the  market  owing  to 


the  streaky  and  laminated  veins  now  be- 
ing worked.  The  undisputed  evidence  in 
this  case  shows  that  when  the  miner’s 
weight  was  agreed  upon  and  the  price 
fixed,  it  was  fully  .understood  that  smaller 
sizes  would  be  made  and  would  be  sent 
to  the  market.  But  the  fact  that  they 
were  not  sold  at  a profit  caused  them  not 
to  be  considered  in  the  transaction.  The 
principle  of  not  considering  unprofitable 
material  in  a transaction  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  anthracite  trade.  When 
buying  pine  or  hemlock  logs  from  a man, 
who  has  cut  them  from  his  land  or  who 
has  acquired  possession  of  them,  they 
are  bought  by  log  measure.  Now  log 
measure  is  based  upon  the  amount  of 
merchantable  lumber,  board  measure, 
which  can  be  measured  out  of  it  and, 
usually,  board  measure  overruns  log 
measure  one-third,  not  to  speak  of  the 
slabs  and  refuse  material  which  is  made 
in  manufacturing  the  lumber.  When 
laths,  pickets  and  kindling  wood  are 
made  out  of  the  refuse,  the  man  who  sold 
the  logs  gets  nothing  out  of  the  trans- 
action and  no  Profit  from  it.  The  price 
fixed  is  based  upon  log  measure  and 
that,  in  turn,  upon  the  number  of  feet 
of  merchantable  lumber,  board  measure, 
that  can  be  obtained  out  of  the  logs.  It 
is  also  recognized  in  a degree  in  the 
soft  coal  region,  where  men  are  paid 
upon  the  basis  of  the  coal  which  passes 
over  a certain  sized  screen,  the  material 
passing  through  the  screen  being  dis- 
posed of  to  the  best  interests  of  the  em- 
ployer. To  attempt  to  change  the  present 
system,  where  the  payment  is  by  miner’s 
weight,  to  any  other  method  of  paying 
by  weight  is  to  disturb  the  balances,  to 
require  a re-arrangement  of  allowances 
and  prices  and  yardage  and  dockage 
everywhere,  and  everywhere  unevenly. 
For  every  company  is  a problem  by  itself, 
owing  to  its  long  course  of  dealing  with 
its  men.  Each  colliery  is  a problem  by 
itself  owing  to  the  ■ arying  conditions  of 
the  veins  in  a particular  locality,  and 
each  vein  is  a problem  by  itself  owing 
to  the  difficulties  encountered  in  the  dif- 
ferent veins  almost  daily  in  the  prose- 
cution of  the  work.  It  means  a revolu- 
tion. It  means  a chaotic  condition  of  af- 
fairs, alike  disagreeable  to  the  men  and 
to  the  companies,  involving  everything 
in  inextricable  confusion.  If  you  were 
satisfied  there  are  evils  in  the  present 
system,  it  would  be  far  better  to  en- 
dure them  than  to  fly  to  evils  we  know 
not  of.  The  evidence  of  Mr.  May,  gen- 
eral manager  of  the  companies  paying  by 
miner’s  weight,  must  convince  you,  if 
you  will  recall  the  details,  of  the  im- 
practicability of  adopting  the  miners 
theory  and  the  great  desirability  of  let- 
ting well  enough  alone.  You  are  not  deal- 
ing with  any  ordinary  question  of  change 
of  which  the  end  can  be  seen,  the  rea- 
sonableness of  which  has  been  made 
clear. 

Paying  by  the  Car. 

To  those  who  pay  by  the  car  in  the 
northern  field  it  is  suggested  that  there 
Is  a statute  requiring  payment  by  weight. 
There  has  been  so  much  said  about  this 
act  of  assembly  that  it  is  worth  while  to 
see  how  it  reads.  It  was  passed  on  the 
thirtieth  day  of  March,  1875,  and  has 
been  a dead  letter  ever  since.  It  provides 
that  the  coal  nhall  be  weighed  in  the 
mine  car,  provided  that  the  provisions  of 
the  act  shall  apply  only  to  mines  or  col- 
lieries in  which  the  coal  mined  has  here- 
tofore been  paid  for  by  the  car.  How 
many  collieries  are  there  in  the  northern 


221 


field  that  were  in  operation  on  the  30th 
of  March,  1875,  and  at  that  time  paying 
for  the  coal  under  the  car  system?  Is 
there  any  evidence  of  this  before  you? 
The  act  further  provides  that  it  shall  not 
apply  to  any  persons  or  corporations  that 
may  by  contract  agree  with  their  mir.  ;r 
otherwise  than  as  provided  in  the  act. 

The  mine  workers  are  here  submitting 
to  your  determination  the  propriety  of 
methods  of  payment,  among  other  things. 
They  will  be  as  much  bound  by  your  de- 
termination as  to  methods  as  the  com- 
panies. It  is  idle,  therefore,  for  them  to 
rely  upon  the  provisions  ot  such  an  act 
of  assembly  and,  indeed,  the  act  is  of 
absolutely  no  value  because  any  com- 
pany can  say  to  its  men  “we  are  on  the 
car  system  here  and  we  shall  have  to 
ask  you  to  agree  to  this  method  of  pay- 
ment prior  to  your  entering  our  employ- 
ment.” On  the  other  hand,  it  is  open  to 
the  men  to  say  “we  decline  to  go  into 
your  service  unless  you  change  to  the 
weight  system.”  All  of  this  is,  of  course, 
subject  to  the  determination  of  this  com- 
mission as  to  the  continuance  of  present 
methods  or  a change  to  an  experiment. 
As  I said  before,  nearly  ninety  per  cent, 
of  the  collieries  in  our  district  are  upon 
the  car  system.  It  has  been  proven  to 
be  as  fair  as  any  other  system  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  commission.  The 
car  prices  and  corresponding  differentials 
In  the  different  mines  and  veins  on  ac- 
count of  the  varying  conditions  met  with 
in  relation  to  the  impurities  with  which 
the  miner  has  to  contend,  such  as  yard- 
ages and  allowances,  have  been  adjusted 
from  time  to  time  to  meet  the  changes 
in  conditions,  so  as  not  to  work  an  in- 
justice to  either  miner  or  employer.  It 
would  be  necessary  to  use  the  present 
prices  paid  for  the  different  sizes  of  cars 
as  bases  or  units.  If  this  is  done  it  is 
not  material  whether  the  miner  is  paid 
by  the  shovelful,  cubical  foot,  car.  two 
thousand  per  ton,  twenty-two  hundred 
and  forty  pound  ton  or  twenty-eight  hun- 
dred pound  ton,  so  long  as  the  price  is 
adjusted  in  accordance  witn  the  basis  of 
the  labor  performed.  The  car  system  is 
the  basis  of  years  of  experience.  One  of 
the  prime  advantages  has  been  the  avoid- 
ance of  disputes  between  the  miners  and 
their  employers.  The  foimer  have  found 
It  an  easy  matter  to  keep  tally  of  the 
number  of  cars  they  loaded,  and  when 
these  were  filled  with  clean  coal  could 
determine  their  wages  with  certainty. 
There  was  no  calculation  of  the  weight 
of  each  loaded  car,  less  the  weight  of 
the  empty  car  and  less  deductions  for 
the  weight  of  slate  and  rock,  to  arrive  at 
a net  weight,  which  had  to  be  added  to 
that  of  other  cars  and  thus  converted  to 
tons,  as  must  necessarily  be  done  when 
paying  by  the  ton.  Every  man  knew  ex- 
actly what  he  would  receive.  The  very 
fact  of  the  law's  being  on  the  statute 
books,  calling  for  payment  by  weight, 
and  no  change  having  been  suggested  by 
either  the  employe  or  employer  for  a 
period  of  over  a quarter  of  a century, 
justifies  the  assertion  that  the  car  sys- 
tem is  a reasonably  satisfactory  method 
of  payment  for  the  work  performed.  It 
appears  by  the  earnings  of  the  contract 
miners  of  these  companies  that  the  sys- 
tem is  fair  to  all  concerned.  No  request 
has  ever  been  made  to  the  operators  for 
a change  in  this  system.  The  few  wit- 
nesses who  have  testified  that  thev  would 
like  a change  can  give  no  Intelligible  rea- 
son for  any  such  change.  They  do  not 
care  to  change  places  with  the  miner  who 
is  paid  by  the  ton  and  their  average  an 


222 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


nual  earnings  appear  to  be  as  high.  A 
great  many  allowances  are  made  under 
this  system  on  the  price  paid  per  yard, 
where  the  miner  lias  been  compelled  to 
blast  top  or  bottom,  also  In  driving  cross- 
cuts, without  increasing  the  price  per  car. 

Allowances  Necessary. 

These  allowances  have  been  necessary 
so  that  the  miner  could  receive  a fair 
day’s  pay  for  the  work  performed  and 
they  have  become  so  general  that  there 
is  now  a regular  standard  price  for  this 
work.  As  an  illustration,  we  will  imag- 
ine that  Mr.  A.,  a miner,  had  fifty  cars 
at  a dollar  per  ear  and  ten  yards  of 
cross-cut  at  fifty  cents,  which  would 
equal  fifty-five  dollars;  now  if  he  was 
five  dollars  short  of  being  properly  paid 
the  foreman  would  increase  the  price  of 
the  cross-cut  fifty  cents  a yard,  making 
up  the  five  dollars.  He  could  have  in- 
creased the  price  of  the  car  ten  cents 
and  made  the  five  dollars  allowance  in 
that  manner.  The  same  thing  applies  to 
cutting  bottom  and  top,  prices  on  air- 
ways, gangways,  timber  and  all  other 
work.  The  differentials  that  are  allowed 
the  miner  are  principally  made  on  the 
yard,  where  the  miner  has  yardage,  but 
in  chambers  where  the  miner  has  no 
yardage,  such  as  top  or  bottom,  the  dif- 
ferentials are  usually  allowed  on  the 
price  of  the  car.  In  establishing  the  dif- 
ferent rates  per  yard  in  the  various  veins 
of  different  collieries  the  price  per  car 
was  first  settled  on.  The  other  prices 
were  established  based  on  this  settled 
car  price.  In  other  words,  the  car  was 
the  unit  of  measurement.  If  this  unit  is 
changed  it  must  necessarily  follow  that 
all  prices  based  on  this  unit  must  be 
changed  accordingly.  It  would,  therefore, 
require  a readjustment  of  all  the  rates 
of  the  companies  now  paying  under  the 
car  system,  if  you  were  to  compel  them 
to  change  the  payment  by  weight  or  to 
any  other  method.  If  you  allow  these 
companies  to  maintain  their  present 
prices  per  yard  and  present  differentials, 
and  then  direct  a transfer  to  the  system 
of  paying  by  the  ton,  the  miners  would 
naturally  be  dissatisfied,  as  they  would 
immediately  demand  the  same  rate  per 
ton  as  the  miners  are  paid  in  other  sec- 
tions of  the  region.  Let  me  give  you  an 
illustration:  Transposing  the  price  per 

car  to  a price  py  ton,  allowing  all  dif- 
ferentials to  remain  as  they  are  at  pres- 
ent, if  the  same  were  to  equal  fifty  cents 
per  ton,  the  miners  would  immediately 
become  dissatisfied,  if  the  companies  who 
are  now  paying  by  weight  are  paying 
sixty  to  seventy  cents  per  ton  and  they 
would  demand  the  same  rate  per  ton 
as  these  companies  are  paying,  notwith- 
standing that  the  rates  and  differentials 
of  the  company  paying  under  the  car  sys- 
tem are  higher  than  those  paying  in  t’- 
other way.  They  would  say,  “Here  ,s 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  "Western 
paying  its  men  fifty  cents  a ton,  while 
the  Hillside  are  paying  its  men  seventy 
cents  a ton.”  If  any  of  these  companies 
were  to  open  up  a new  colliery  it  might 
be  desirable  to  leave  it  to  the  contract 
miners  to  determine  whether  they  would 
decide  to  be  paid  by  the  ton,  bushel,  the 
hundred  weight,  car,  box  or  any  other 
method,  but  the  other  rates  for  their 
labor  performed  !n  connection  with  the 
mining  would  have  to  be  established  on 
the  unit  of  measurement  agreed  upon  be- 
tween the  company  and  the  men.  I have 
said  nothing  about  the  cost  of  the  change 
to  the  companies.  It  has  been  stated  here 
as  amounting  to  hundreds  of  thousands 


of  dollars.  On  the  other  hand,  a witness 
for  the  mine  workers  said  it  would  be 
inconsequential.  A scale  would  have  to 
be  erected  at  the  old  breakers  where 
they  are  erected  over,  the  opening  or 
shaft  and  where  the  coal  is  hoisted  di- 
rect from  the  mines  to  the  tipple,  and 
it  would  be  almost  impossible  to  place 
a scale  between  the  edge  of  the  tipple 
and  the  shaft  as  the  space  there  will 
not  allow  it.  And  if  it  were  necessary  to 
extend  the  space  to  provide  for  the 
scales  it  would  require  a change,  prac- 
tically, in  the  breaker  from  top  to  bottom 
in  order  to  get  the  necessary  pitch  for  the 
coal  to  run  through.  Mr.  Phillips,  gener- 
al superintendent  of  the  Lackawanna,  has 
discussed  this  at  considerable  length  and 
by  reference  to  his  testimony  you  can 
gather  the  views  of  a thoroughly  prac- 
tical man  of  very  long  experience,  whose 
opinion,  I am  sure,  is  entitled  to  great 
weight.  The  suggestion  has  been  made 
that  scales  might  be  placed  inside  the 
mines.  This  not  only  would  cause  great 
inconvenience  and  unnecessary  expense, 
but  would  require  as  many  scales  as 
there  are  different  veins,  for  in  many  of 
the  collieries  of  these  companies  coal  is 
hoisted  from  four  or  five  different  land- 
ings. Then  you  would  have  to  set  a 
scale  at  every  landing  and  a separate 
weigh-master  for  every  scale.  The  ob- 
jection to  paying  by  the  car  ir.  view  of 
the  fact  that  coal  is  sold  by  the  ton.  is 
a trifling  one.  Lumber  is  sold  by  the 
thousand  feet  and  mill  men  paid  by  the 
day.  Farmers  pay  their  labor  by  the 
day  and  sell  their  products  by  the  bushel 
or  pound.  Iron  ore  is  sold  by  the  ton 
and  the  miners  paid  by  the  day  or  cubic 
yard.  Building  stone  is  sold  by  the  yard 
and  the  quarrymen  paid  by  the  day. 

Payment  by  Yard. 

Another  system  has  been  suggested: 
That  is  payment  by  the  yard.  There  is 
an  advantage  in  rhis,  perhaps,  to  the 
operator  in  that  thex'e  is  no  temptation 
for  a miner  to  load  slate  or  rock  in  the 
car.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  cars  are 
scarce,  he  would  be  apt  to  throw  down 
coal,  throw  it  into  the  gob  and  cover  it 
with  rock.  He  would  be  paid  by  the 
yardage  removed,  but  the  company  and 
land-owner  would  lose  Furthermore, 
such  system  would  be  applicable  only  to 
chambers,  gangways  and  airways,  and 
could  not  be  employed  in  removing  pil- 
lars. Owing  to  the  constant  variations 
in  the  character  of  the  vein  and  the  dif- 
ficulties in  working,  constant  disputes 
would  arise  requiring  adjustment  and  al- 
lowances. This  system,  however,  seems 
to  be  necessary  in  veins  where  cars  can- 
not be  run  into  the  chamber. 

There  are  weighty  objections  to  such  p 
system.  The  seams  vary  so  much  in 
thickness  that  it  is  equitable  there  should 
be  variation  in  price  every  time  there 
was  a variation  in  thickness.  There 
would  probably  be  a much  less  yield  per 
car  and  that  would  result  in  a chance 
for  another  loss  of  the  natural  wealth 
which  belongs  to  the  country.  This 
would  especially  be  the  fact  where  there 
was  much  idle  time.  Where  all  the  ma- 
terial is  taken  out  of  the  mine  into  the 
breaker  there  is  not  this  objection,  but 
the  increased  cost  for  handling  this  waste 
material  on  the  roads,  in  the  cars  and  in 
the  breaker  would  be  astonishing.  It  is 
true  the  companies  now  pay  for  narrow 
work  by  the  yard.  But  it  is  only  done 
because  it  cannot  readily  be  paid  for  in 
any  other  way.  If  it  were  possible  to  pay 
by  the  cubic  yard  there  might  not  be  so 


much  objection,  but  this,  of  course,  is 
impossible  because  you  cannot  get  at  -the 
coal  to  measure  it  before  it  is  mined. 

Another  system  has  been  suggested, 
that  is  payment  by  the  day.  This  is  the 
most  unsatisfactory  system  conceivable. 
It  is  going  from  the  contract  or  piece 
work  system,  which  every  manufacturer 
knows  is  the  most  economical  way  of 
producing  an  article,  to  a method  whi,  h 
has  long  been  abandoned  on  all  sides. 
It  is  universally  true  that  a man  will 
work  better  for  himself  than  anybody 
else,  and  when  he  works  by  the  piece, 
yard,  ton,  or  by  the  car,  he  is,  in  a 
sense,  working  for  himself  and  he  will 
put  forth  more  exertion  than  when  he 
works  by  the  day. 

There  are  objections,  possibly,  that  can 
be  urged  to  any  system.  One  of  the 
most  common  is  the  docking  boss. 
Whether  you  pay  by  the  car  or  by  weight 
there  is  a temptation  to  the  men  to  hi  e 
rock  and  slate  in  the  car.  Anthracite 
coal  weighs  ninety-three  and  one-half 
pounds  per  cubic  foot,  slate  about  143 
pounds  and  rock  163  pounds.  The  miner 
or  his  laborer  hide  them  with  much 
care  in  their  effort  to  secure  the  benefit 
from  this  additional  weight.  The  same 
is  true  where  payment  is  being  made  by 
the  car,  although  it  is  a matter  of  bulk, 
not  weight,  and  the  temptation  is  not 
so  great.  The  damage  arising  from  this 
introduction  of  foreign  matter  into  the 
car  is  a serious  one.  There  is  not  on  y 
the  probability  of  damage  to  the  rolls 
and  machinery  through  which  the  rock 
will  pass,  but  the  labor  of  afterwards 
picking  it  out  from  the  prepared  sizes 
of  coal.  To  endeavor  to  correct  it  in  so 
far  as  possible  a docking  boss  is  sta- 
tioned where  he  can  examine  each  car 
and  when  he  finds  any  dishonest  loading, 
he  takes  the  number  of  the  miner  and 
makes  such  deduction  as  may  seem  pro- 
per. This  is  a feature  which  cannot  be 
avoided  in  either  the  ton  or  car  system. 
Even  when  the  men  are  honest,  they 
may  be  careless,  or  their  laborers  may 
throw  in  slate  or  rock  in  their  haste  to 
finish  the  day’s  work. 

I understand  the  counsel  for  the  mine 
workers  to  agree  that  we  cannot  expect 
to  do  away  with  the  docking  boss.  1 
think  it  is  just  as  fair  for  us  to  say  that 
the  miner  ought  to  have  a cheek  docking 
boss  or  .check  weighman,  as  the  case 
may  be,  and  I can  sec  no  objection  to 
them. 

I have  outlined,  in  a very  brief  way. 
some  of  the  systems  in  vogue  and  some 
of  the  proposed  changes.  I think  I have 
said  enough  to  show  the  impropriety  of 
making  any  change.  It  is  a leap  into  tie 
dark.  The  few  who  are  here  urging  it 
do  not  know  what  they  are  asking  fcr. 
I would  not  attempt  to  make  any  such 
statement  if  it  were  not  for  the  over- 
whelming testimony,  which  I have  read 
and  tried  to  analyze,  all  of  which  con- 
vinces me  that  any  system  is  not  prac- 
ticable everywhere  and  for  every  com- 
pany. The  attempt  to  change  the  estab- 
lished custom  of  nearly  every  antliraciie 
mine,  cannot  but  create  endless  confu- 
sion and  dissatisfaction  among  the  men. 
If  the  tonnage  basis  were  adopted  the 
rate  pc-r  ton  would  have  to  be  calculated 
so  as  to  conform  to  the  present  cost  per 
ton  of  marketable  coal.  This  could  not 
be  arbitrarily  established  by  the  mil  e 
workers. 

Present  System. 

The  present  system  is  the  result,  as  1 
said  before,  of  fifty  years’  practice  ai  d 
experience.  Both  employers  and  cm- 


ployes  are  accustomed  to  its  working. 
Distributive  justice  is  secured  by  the 
proper  allowances,  yardage,  etc.  The 
trouble  is  not  with  the  system  in  any 
mine;  it  is  with  its  application,  and  if 
an  intelligent  examination  were  made  of 
the  system  prevailing  in  any  particular 
mine  and  it  were  to  be  found  that  at 
places  the  men  are  not  fairly  treated  in 
the  matter  of  differentials,  necessary  to 
secure  a fair  return  for  their  day’s  labor, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  world  to  prevent 
the  men,  personally  or  by  committee, 
from  conferring  over  the  matter  with  the 
foreman  and,  if  need  be,  the  superin- 
tendent. I am  quite  sure  the  officials 
have  been  and  now  are  and  ever  will  be 
disposed  to  treat  their  men  fairly  and 
consider  any  fair  grounds  of  complaint 
in  this  regard. 

I am  wondering  if  you  have  any  real 
conception  of  the  difficulties  to  be  en- 
countered in  a change  of  methods.  Rates 
that  have  been  arrived  at  after  years 
of  experience,  you  are  asked  to  over- 
throw by  a fiat  to  take  effect  at  once. 
The  demoralization  of  the  industry  would 
follow,  as  certain  as  the  night  the  day. 
The  rates  now  are,  in  the  main,  satisfac- 
tory and  can  move  up  and  down,  de- 
pending upon  the  state  of  the  trade  and 
the  interests  of  the  employer  and  em- 
ploye under  the  methods  now  in  use.  To 
establish  any  new  method  would  require 
more  or  less  time,  depending  upon  the 
method;  as  an  illustration,  the  only  true 
way  to  get  at  the  rate  would  be  by  ex- 
periment. If  the  experiment  were  taken 
up  simultaneously  at  all  operations  of  a 
large  company,  there  would  not  be  men 
enough  to  supervise  it  and  arrive  at  a 
satisfactory  result.  If  a change  were 
made  it  would  have  to  be  inaugurated  at 
one  or  two  points,  using  the  same  men 
both  for  supervision  and  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  rate  at  the  various  op- 
erations, so  that  the  advantage  of  their 
experience  could  be  had  and  the  de- 
moralization of  the  industry  avoided  as 
much  as  possible.  Altogether,  I earnest- 
ly urge  the  retention  of  our  present  meth- 
ods as  preferable  to  any  proposed. 

The  Fourth  Demand. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  fourth  de- 
mand. Waiving  the  question  of  its  im- 
propriety as  a part  of  this  submission, 
the  proposition  to  go  into  partnership 
with  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  Ameri- 
ca is  not  an  inviting  one,  to  say  the  least. 
Before  it  could  possibly  expect  recogni- 
tion at  the  hands  of  fair-minded  men  it 
would  have  to  be  born  again.  Its  en- 
trance into  our  region  was  the  signal  for 
trouble  and  disc'ontent. 

I know  very  well  that  any  attack  upon 
this  organization  is  regarded  by  its  mem- 
bers as  an  attack  upon  organized  labor 
in  every  form.  I shall  be  accused  of 
enmity  to  those  who  struggle  and  toil. 
And  I shall  be  held  up  as  an  opponent 
of  progressive  ideas  and  the  rights  of 
men  to  unite  to  better  their  conditions. 

I hope,  however,  I shall  not  be  beaten 
into  submission  as  was  the  coal  and  iron 
policeman  who  testified  the  other  day 
as  to  the  shooting  at  Duryea.  There  is 
no  justification  for  the  charge  that  those 
who  are  opposed  to  the  methods  and  the 
practices  of  this  particular  organization 
are  inimical  to  labor  and  its  fair  and  just 
demands.  The  attitude  of  the  companies 
I represent  appeared  in  the  letters  of  the 
several  presidents,  incoroporated  in  the 
documents  relating  to  the  strike  of  1902 
and  in  your  possession.  There  is  no  ob- 
jestion  to  labor  organizing,  no  objection 
to  the  employes  acting  together,  no  de- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

nial  of  their  right  to  be  heard  by  com- 
mittees and  no  discrimination  against  the 
persons  composing  them. 

I do  not  understand  that  there  is  any 
criticism  of  the  system  of  collective  bar- 
gaining, so-called.  Trade  unions  are  rec- 
ognized by  these  companies.  Efforts 
were  made  some  time  ago  to  organize  a 
union  among  the  employes  of  the  Lacka- 
wanna company.  This  was  shown  by 
the  mine  workers  as  if  it  were  an  effort 
on  the  part  of  that  company  prejudicial 
to  the  rights  of  their  employes.  But  how 
does  it  come  about  that  the  advocacy  of 
any  other  organization  of  men.  differing 
in  character  from  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, is  to  be  hooted  down  as  a covert  at- 
tack upon  organized  labor?  This  par- 
ticular union  was  quite  in  line  with  labor 
organizations  generally  and,  apparently, 
much  more  favorable  in  its  possibilities 
for  good  results  than  one  dominated  by 
a rival  industry.  It  is  said  that,  an  organ- 
ization among  the  men  of  the  several  an- 
thracite companies,  each  colliery  being 
a unit,  independent  of  the  bituminous 
workers  and  with  an  autonomy  of  its 
own,  cannot  hope  for  success.  How  then 
do  you  account  for  the  remarkable  suc- 
cess of  other  organizations  formed  upon 
this  pattern  precisely?  If  it  is  essential 
to  the  growth  and  maintenance  of  any 
form  of  organized  labor  to  adopt  tht 
methods  and  practices  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  in  the  past  two  years,  we 
are  unalterably  opposed  to  their  exist- 
ence. If  it  is  not,  the  companies  have 
not  the  slightest  objections  and  have  said 
so  over  and  over  again. 

Case  of  Oppression. 

Shortly  after  the  resumption  of  work 
in  1900  and  in  the  initial  stages  of  the 
progress  of  the  United  Mire  Workers 
in  their  organization  of  our  district,  they 
met  at  Edwardsville  and  it  was  there 
"regularly  moved  and  seconded  that  it 
become  compulsory  on  the  part  of  any 
man  employed  in  and  around  the  mines 
to  become  a member  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America.”  Subsequently  they 
determined  that  where  employes  refused 
to  become  members  of  their  organization 
and  wear  the  working  button,  “the  loca’s 
governing  such  colliery,  after  using  all 
such  persuasive  measures  to  get  such 
employes  to  join  and  failing  in  such, 
have  full  power  to  suspend  operations  at 
such  colliery  until  such  employes  become 
members  of  the  organization.”  You  see 
they  take  charge  of  the  collieries  for  us, 
by  this  resolution,  and  undertake  to  sus- 
pend operations  at  their  sweet  will  and 
pleasure.  Over  and  over  again  the  locals 
passed  resolutions  determining  not  to 
work  with  non-union  men.  The  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  having  introduced  a 
new  system  of  "forcing  the  miners,”  as 
they  called  it,  to  place  the  road  on  one 
side  of  the  place  instead  of  in  the  cen- 
ter, and  it  appearing  that  the  company 
saved  money  by  keeping  the  pillars  free 
from  gob,  the  organization  resolved  to 
demand  that  the  company  revert  to  the 
old  system,  and  in  the  event  of  refusal 
to  order  all  the  employes  of  the  company 
out  on  strike. 

They  grew  bolder.  They  decide  to  in- 
sist upon  forcing  all  who  work  in  and 
around  the  mines  to  become  members  of 
the  union  and  that  they  refuse  to  work 
with  non-union  men.  And  then  they  at- 
tack the  contract  system,  by  which  one 
of  their  number  employs  more  than  the 
prescribed  number  of  laborers  and,  who, 
they  complain,  seldom  enters  or  goes 
near  the  work;  such  men  they  decide  to 
expel  from  the  union  and  then  they  de- 


223 


cide  to  absolutely  refuse  to  work  with  a 
man  so  expelled  from  the  union.  This 
is  an  act  of  conspiracy  against  the  com- 
pany and  their  fellow  laborers,  well  rec- 
ognized in  the  law,  and  destructive  of 
every  principle  of  personal  freedom  and 
in  violation  of  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  Pennsylvania. 

Judge  McDowell  said,  in  delivering  the 
opinion  of  the  court,  in  the  case  of  United 
States  vs.  Webber  et.  al.,  (114  Federal  Re- 
porter, page  950):  "If  the  objects  of  a 
union  are  unlawful,  or  if  the  methods 
employed  by  it,  either  to  induce  acquisi- 
tions to  its  ranks  or  to  accomplish  its 
ulterior  purposes,  are  illegal,  it  appeals 
to  be  well  settled  that  the  persons  vho 
combine  in  such  efforts  are  conspirators.” 

It  is  all  well  enough  to  talk  about  con- 
ciliatory methdds  and  industr  al  peace, 
and  a forgiving  spirit,  ana  a broad  view 
of  things.  But  I submit  it  is  essential 
that  we  should  understand  the  first  prin- 
ciples and  I am  unable  to  see  why  op- 
pression is  not  as  oppressive  that  ema- 
nates from  the  ranks  of  the  laboring  man 
as  from  the  ranks  of  the  employing 
classes. 

On  Official  Record. 

This  is  not  slander  or  villification.  I am 
quoting  from  the  official  records  of  the 
convention,  the  correctness  of  which  is 
certified  to  by  the  president  himself. 
These  ideas  are  not  conformable  to  the 
American  standard  of  living.  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell tells  us,  as  the  spokesman  for  the  or- 
ganization, that  the  companies  ought  not 
to  be  permitted  to  hire  a "private  army 
of  guards  whenever  they  see  fit.”  (Page 
390,  record.)  And  he  volunteers  the  sug- 
gestion that  he  thinks  they  ought  to  be 
prevented  from  employing  private  guards 
of  any  character  at  all,  until  they  have 
been  refused  protection  by  the  regular 
and  proper  authorities.  Their  history, 
their  rules,  their  actions,  their  theories 
are  antagonistic  to  what  I conceive  to 
be  the  orderly  observance  of  the  law. 
And  when  you  suggest  that  they  incor- 
porate, so  as  to  become  responsible  for 
their  contracts,  as  the  companies  are. 
they  tell  you  it  is  insulting  and  none  of 
your  business. 

I promised  to  give  you  an  inkling  rf 
how  they  act,  how  they  destroy  indi- 
vidual effort,  curb  ambition,  develop  lack 
of  respect  of  authority  and  destroy  d s- 
cipline.  Have  I not  done  It?  In  their 
ranks  there  are  a greater  number  of 
nationalities  than  were  gathered  to- 
gether on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  they 
speak  as  many  tongues.  Men  and  boy.-, 
young  and  old,  mature  and  immature, 
fair-minded  and  otherwise,  all  share  n 
the  incongruous,  illogical  and.  at  times, 
vicious  methods  of  which  you  have  had 
many  glimpses  during  all  these  weeks. 

The  conduct  of  the  organization  during 
the  lamentable  strike  had  all  the  ele- 
ments of  terror  and  intimidation,  and 
those  elements  being  intentionally  pres- 
ent, were  indubitably  designed  to  compel 
the  companies  to  accede  to  the  demancs 
they  had  the  lawful  right  to  decline  or 
reject,  at  their  option.  You  cannot  shut 
your  eyes  to  propositions  so  palpable. 
They  issued  proclamations  in  the  Read- 
ing district,  asking  everyDody  to  observe 
the  law.  Mr.  Mitchell  says  he  frequently, 
and  in  a public  way,  urged  observath  n 
of  the  law.  “Soft  words  butter  no  pars- 
nips.” Their  associates  were  continually 
defying  the  law.  What  steps  did  they 
take  to  discipline  them?  As  General 
Gobin  states  it,  the  leasers  came  to  him 
and  said  they  would  assist  him  in  his 
efforts  to  preserve  law  and  order,  in  the 


224 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


lower  regions,  where  the  disturbances 
were  occurring,  fit  only  for  what  is  gen- 
erally understood  by  the  lower  regions, 
but,  he  says,  they  did  nothing.  So  it  was 
with  us.  They  did  nothing,  they  cor- 
rected nothing,  they  stopped  nothing. 
Their  attitude  encouraged  the  aggressions 
of  the  membership  and  its  rank  and  file. 

Mr.  Nichols,  the  district  leader,  on  the 
27th  of  September,  sends  a letter  to  the 
officers  and  members  of  the  Jessup  local, 
stating  that  the  bearer  had  quit  work 
at  the  Oxford  mine,  “and  intends  to  be  a 
good  union  man.  I advise  and  trust  ycu 
will  all  treat  him  in  a friendly  way,  as 
long  as  he  behaves  himsell  accordingly." 
What  did  he  mean  by  that?  The  other 
side  will  say  he  meant  nothing  out  of  the 
way.  What  happened?  The  man  went 
back  again  in  a little  while,  and  the 
strikers  at  Jessup  dynamited  his  house. 
Was  there  any  encouragement  to  them  in 
their  unlawful  methods  in  this  sugges- 
tion that  they  were  to  treat  the  poor 
fellow  in  a fiiendly  way  as  long  as  he 
behaved  himself,  that  is,  remained  away 
from  work? 

Rights  of  a Workingman. 

“The  right  to  employ  whom  ore 
wishes,  the  correlative  right  to  hire 
whom  one  pleases,  for  wages  satisfactory 
to  both,  and  the  right  of  the  same  parties 


to  abandon  or  dissolve  the  re’ations  thus 
assumed,  are  undeniable.  The  right  rf 
each  party  to  strive  to  obtain  the  terms 
most  beneficial  to  Iwnself,  and  the  right 
of  a number  of  persons,  similarly  s t- 
uated,  to  unite  to  acc- mplisn  such  ends, 
must  be  admitted  by  all.  * * * When 
either  side  to  a contention  over  diveise 
Interests  of  this  character  can,  by  super- 
ior force,  or  other  means  of  intimidation, 
compel  the  other  side  to  such  controverey 
to  yield  to  its  demands,  anarchy  and  op- 
pression have  begun  and  there  is  no  as- 
surance that  in  the  next  encounter  the 
other  side  may  not  be  the  victors,  and 
thus  might  and  force  and  power,  Instead 
nf  just,  legal  principles,  may  dictate  the 
standard  of  right,  to  which  all  must  con- 
form.” This  is  the  language  of  Judge 
Evans,  in  the  case  of  the  Mining  com- 
pany vs.  W'ood,  e:  ah,  members  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America  (112 
Federal  Reporter,  page  482),  and  is  an 
instance  of  what  Mr.  Mitchell  calls  “gov- 
ernment by  injunction.”  And  he  criti- 
cises that  method  of  enforcing  the  law. 
At  times  it  seems  most  desirable,  to  my 
mind,  and  indeed  the  only  way  to  secure 
persons  and  property  from  unlawful  at- 
tack. 

Read  the  letter  of  the  presidents  of  the 
coal  companies  to  the  president  of  ;he 
United  States  suggesting  this  commis- 


sion. Is  it  not  sound?  “They,  therefore, 
re-state  their  position,  that  they  will 
not  discriminate  against  the  United  Mire 
Workers;  that  they  Insist  that  the 
miners’  union  shall  not  discriminate 
against  or  refuse  to  work  with  non-union 
men;  that  there  shall  be  no  restriction  cr 
deterioration  in  quantity  or  quality  cf 
work,  and  that,  owing  to  the  varying 
physical  conditions  of  the  anthracite 
mines,  each  colliery  is  a problem  by  it- 
self." 

This  commission  has  been  referred  to  as 
an  arbitration.  It  is  not  an  arbitration. 
Strictly  speaking,  an  arbitration  seems 
to  mean  one  of  the  parties  must  >i  Id 
something.  In  fact,  it  has  been  defined 
by  a distinguished  writer  upon  sociology 
as  “a  splitting  of  the  difference,  and 
comes  about  to  the  average  of  extreme 
terms  possible  for  both  sides  to  accept.” 

If  you  come  to  an  agreement,  as  I am 
sure  you  will,  the  reasons  for  which  c;  n 
be  explained  and  argued  out,  such  an 
understanding  and  agreement  will  have 
far  more  moral  worth  than  any  arbitrary 
decree  you  may  see  fit  to  make.  And  I 
believe  your  work  will  be  of  lasting  bene- 
fit to  the  region  and  to  the  people  en- 
gaged in  this,  the  most  important  of  a 1 
the  industries  of  the  commonwealth  cf 
Pennsylvania. 


Proceedings  of  Wednesday,  Feb.  11. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Feb  12  ] 


Philadelphia,  Pa.,  Feb.  11. — Seven 
speeches  occupying  six  hours  were  lis- 
tened to  by  the  mine  strike  commission- 
ers today.  They  were  made  by  Francis 
I.  Gowen,  representing  the  Lehigh  Val- 
ley Coal  company,  I.  H.  Burns  and  H. 
C.  Reynolds,  representing  the  inde- 
pendent operators  of  the  Lackawanna- 
Wyoming  region;  John  B.  Kerr,  rep- 
resenting the  Ontario  and  Western;  ex- 
Justice  Alfred  Hand  representing  Wil- 
liam Connell  & Co.;  Samuel  Dickson, 
representing  the  independent  operators 
of  the  Lehigh  region,  and  Simon  R. 
Wolverton,  representing  the  Philadel- 
phia and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  com- 
pany. 

Mr.  Gowen  and  Mr.  Burns  occupied 
all  the  morning  session.  Mr.  Reynolds 
took  up  the  first  three-quarters  of  an 
hour  of  the  afternoon  session.  Mr. 
Kerr  made  only  a few  remarks,  and 
Mr.  Hand  contented  himself  with  an 
outline  of  his  address,  which  he  filed  in 
typewritten  form.  Mr.  Dickson  spoke 
for  nearly  two  hours  and  was  followed 
by  Mr.  Wolverton,  who  was  still  ad- 
dressing the  commission  at  adjourn- 
ment. 

ARGUMENT  PRESENTED 

BY  MR.  IRA  H.  BURNS 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission: 

The  facts  are  before  us,  and  it  only 
remains  to  draw  the  proper  conclusions. 

This  commission  came  into  existence 
without  the  authority  of  a statute,  and 
it  is  therefore  not  bound  down  to  techni- 
cal terms  and  legal  phrase.  It  derives 
its  powers  from  the  broad,  general  agree- 
ment of  the  parties,  which,  in  effi  ct, 
says  do  justice  to  all.  It  Is  well  th;  t 
these  are  the  legal  conditions,  for  they 


allow  this  tribunal  the  largest  latitude  in 
framing  its  decree.  It  is  not  confined 
simply  to  a judgment  against  one  s de 
or  the  other,  but  may  impose  conditions 
on  both. 

Let  us  see  what  is  before  us. 

Anthracite  coal  is  virtually  one  of  the 
necessities  of  life  over  a considerable 
portion  of  the  country.  For  five  months 
the  public  was  held  by  the  throat  by 
those  who  would  neither  work  themselves 
nor  allow  others  to  do  so.  This  condi- 
tion was  maintained  by  various  crimes, 
from  murder  down  to  arson,  dynamiting, 
and  assault  and  battery.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  the  sixth  month  of  the 
strike,  cold  weather  was  fast  approach- 
ing and  the  visible  supply  of  anthracite 
coal  was  practically  exhausted.  The  la- 
borers who  were  willing  to  work  were  in 
deadly  fear  of  losing  their  lives  if  th  y 
attempted  it.  Serious  suffering  was  like- 
ly to  come  to  the  innocent  pub  ic. 
Neither  the  county,  state  nor  nation 
seemed  able  to  protect  rights  and  pre- 
serve order.  Indeed,  the  American  flog 
seems  amply  able  to  protect  the  Ameri- 
can citizen  all  over  the  world  except  in 
these  United  States  of  America.  When 
the  commander  of  an  Austrian  vessel, 
some  years  ago,  detained  an  American 
citizen  against  his  will,  our  Commodoie 
Ingraham  simply  ran  up  the  Stars  ai  d 
Stripes,  swung  his  broadside  towards  the 
Austrian,  and  said:  "Send  us  the  man.” 
The  man  was  forthcoming. 

From  this  same  Austria,  in  these  days, 
comes  a horde  of  disciples  of  lawlessness, 
and,  with  the  odor  of  the  steerage  hard  y 
shaken  from  their  garments,  set  up  in 
these  coal  regions  a government  of  their 
own,  and  enforce  their  edicts  with  bombs 
and  bludgeons.  To  all  this,  our  author  i- 
tios  seem  to  have  but  the  poor  answrr, 
“What  will  you  take  to  De  good?”  We 
who  have  neither  the  power  nor  duty  to 
make  or  enforce  the  laws,  are  to  be 
taxed  to  pay  the  ransom. 


It  was  under  these  conditions  that  this 
commission  was  appointed  by  the  highest 
official  of  our  government.  It  is  an  ex- 
periment. Whether  it  will  prove  a wise 
move  in  the  interest  of  harmony,  or  a 
weak  yielding  to  lawless  pressure,  re- 
mains to  be  seen. 

Respective  Claims. 

What  are  the  respective  claims  of  the 
miners  and  operators?  The  miners  want: 

More  pay. 

Less  work. 

The  operators  want: 

The  right  of  every  man  to  own  ar.d 
control  his  own  labor. 

"Thou  shalt  not  kill.” 

The  one  wants  more  money;  the  other 
more  law  and  order.  The  one  contends 
for  a policy;  the  other  for  a pnnciple. 
Whether  a man  shall  receive  one  dollar 
or  two  for  a day’s  woik,  or  whether  he 
shall  work  eight  hours  or  ten  are  ma  - 
ters  of  policy  and  expediency,  on  which 
men  may  honestly  differ  and  which  may 
be  changed  by  agreement^  but  whether  a 
man  shall  be  allowed  to  earn  his  daily 
bread  in  his  own  way,  subject  only  to  the. 
laws  of  the  land,  is  a principle  as  old  as 
the  creation  and  as  eternal  as  the  ever- 
lasting hills.  Policies  can  be  changed. 
Principles  can  no  more  be  altered  or 
compromised  than  can  the  ten  Command- 
ments. 

The  crucial  point  in  this  whole  con- 
troversy will  finally  be  the  right  of  every 
man  to  enjoy  the  fruit  of  his  own  labor, 
with  none  to  molest  ar  make  afraid. 
Forty  years  ago  it  took  four  thousand 
millions  of  treasure,  tens  of  thousands 
of  valuable  lives  and  four  years  of  crutl 
and  bloody  war  to  vindicate  the  right  of 
the  bondmen  to  the  product  of  his  own 
labor.  The  bondage  of  a non-union  man 
during  a strike  is  worse  than  was  that 
of  the  slave.  His  master,  at  least,  had 
the  merit  of  courage.  He  swung  his  lash 
in  daylight,  and  when  he  made  a bill  of 
sale  of  human  flesh  and  blood  it  was  a 


public  document.  The  would-be  master 
of  the  non-union  man  lets  fall  his  blud- 
geon from  behind,  and  his  stilletto  is 
thrust  out  from  a wall  of  darkness. 

But  the  plaintiffs  may  say  that  these 
allegations,  as  to  them,  are  not  proven. 
Cain  might  have  said  the  same  thing  af- 
ter he  killed  his  brother,  and  there  is 
less  doubt  as  to  the  murderers  of  Bedell, 
Sweeney  and  Winston  than  there  is  as 
to  who  killed  Abel. 

Why  is  it  that  were  are  here,  and  why 
are  we  discussing  the  wishes,  or  de- 
mands, of  a single  division  of  laborers 
among  the  many  that  perform  the  labor 
of  this  country?  Why  does  not  this  com- 
mission sit  to  hear  all  laborers  who  have 
grievances?  Laborers  in  the  agricultural 
fields  greatly  outnumber  those  in  the 
mines,  and  their  wages  are  smaller,  and 
yet  there  seems  to  be  no  move  on  the 
part  of  rulers  and  statesmen  to  interfei  e 
in  their  behalf.  Why?  Apparently  only 
because  they  do  not  band  together  and 
seek  to  advance  their  own  interests  by 
causing  public  suffering. 

Return  to  Feudal  Days. 

Has  it,  then,  come  to  this,  that  justice 
takes  cognizance  of  numbers?  Do  favors 
go  to  a thousand  that  would  not  go  to 
an  individual  with  equal  claim?  If  so, 
then  we  have  gone  pack  a thousa-  d 
years,  to  the  days  of  feudal  England, 
when  a baron  with  a thousand  speai  s 
could  move  the  cause  of  justice,  as  well 
as  the  favors  of  the  king. 

We  are,  however,  confronted  with  a 
condition.  The  testimony  is  on  the  rec- 
ord, and  it  only  remains  for  this  commis- 
sion to  add  its  findings  of  fact  and  con- 
clusions of  what  it  may  consider  ought 
to  be  the  law.  We  respectfully  but  earn- 
estly urge  this  body  not  to  forget  for  a 
moment  the  sufferings  and  deserts  of  the 
non-union  miner.  He  stands  for  a 
principle,  as  much  as  the  martyrs  of  the 
early  ages  stood  for  their  faith.  He  has 
suffered  in  person  and  estate,  and  in  the 
dearer  and  tenderer  ties  that  bind  him  to 
his  wife  and  children.  With  a steadfast 
courage  that  most  of  us  will  never  pos- 
sess, he  pursued  the  line  of  duty  as  he 
saw  it,  even  down  into  the  valley  of  the 
shadow  of  Death.  The  greatest  of  the 
kings  of  earth  could  do  no  more.  And 
all  this  in  the  face  of  the  solemn  coven- 
ant which  the  great  state  of  Pennsy- 
vania  made  with  all  hgr  people  when  she 
said: 

“All  men  are  born  equally  free  and  in- 
dependent and  have  certain  inherent  ar  d 
indefeasible  rights,  among  which  a e 
those  of  enjoying  and  defending  life  and 
liberty,  of  acquiring,  possessing  and  pro- 
tecting property  and  reputation,  and  of 
pursuing  their  own  happiness.” 

How  beautiful  in  promise,  how  barren 
in  performance!  What  a mockery  to 
have  read  this  over  the  coffin  of  James 
Winston!  The  difference  between  the 
murderers  of  Winston,  Sweeney  and  Be- 
dell and  the  disciples  of  the  Spanish  in. 
quisition  is  not  one  of  result,  for  dea  h 
reaped  the  harvest  in  both  cases,  but  the 
latter  probably  believed  they  were  work- 
ing the  will  of  God,  while  the  former 
knew  they  were  in  the  service  of  the 
devil. 

Monster  of  the  Past. 

Many  years  ago,  our  commonwealth 
grappled  with  the  hydra-headed  monster 
of  crime  in  the  anthracite  regions,  and 
finally  wiped  the  assassins  off  the  face 
of  the  earth.  But  then  there  was  a man 
of  fertile  brain  and  nerve  behind  the 
machinery  of-  the  law.  Unfortunately, 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


Franklin  B.  Gowen  is  dead,  and  has  left 
no  successor.  He  died  before  the  full  de- 
velopment of  the  modern  doctrine  of 
compromising  with  crime  on  the  basis  of 
pecuniary  consideration. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  inquire 
who,  in  the  end,  will  have  to  pay  the 
price  of  peace?  Every  tax  upon  every 
article  of  trade  or  manufacture  must  in- 
evitably be  paid  by  the  consumer.  It  is 
an  inexorable  law  of  commerce.  If  this 
commission  sees  fit  to  increase  the  cost 
of  coal  by  raising  the  wages  of  the 
miner,  it  is  the  consumer  that  must  final- 
ly bear  the  burden,  and  this  result  can  in 
no  way  be  changed  by  the  will  or  direc- 
tion of  this  commission.  It  is  as  inevit- 
able as  the  law  of  gravitation. 

If  it  were  the  mining  of  real  diamonds 
instead  of  the  imitation  that  we  were  dis- 
cussing, the  final  result  would  not  be  so 
important,  because  the  consumers  would 
be  amply  able  to  bear  the  burden,  but 
in  our  winters  the  poorest  of  the  poor 
must  have  warmth,  or  perish.  Let  it  be 
distinctly  kept  in  mind  that  this  is  a 
question  which  affects  the  millions  of 
consumers,  on  one  side,  and  the  thous- 
ands of  miners  on  the  other  side.  Is  it 
wise  to  put  the  burden  on  the  many  for 
the  benefit  of  the  few? 

We  take  it  for  granted  that,  above  all 
things,  this  commission  stands  for  law, 
order  and  justice.  A government  whore 
course  is  swerved  by  the  shifting  pas- 
sions of  a lawless  mob,  neither  can  nor 
deserves  to  exist.  Better  a monarchy, 
with  safety  to  life  and  property,  than  a 
republic  where  the  strong  oppress  the 
weak,  and  laws  seem  only  made  to  be 
broken. 

How  stand  the  parties  who  are  here 
asking  judgment  of  this  tribunal? 

Against  the  defendants,  the  coal  opera- 
tors, the  only  charge  seems  to  be  that 
they  will  not  transfer  to  the  mire 
workers  more  of  their  property  in  ex- 
change for  less  work.  There  is  no  charge 
of  crime,  no  boycott,  and  no  interference 
with  the  person  or  estate  of  the  union 
miners. 

Pillars  of  the  Strike. 

Against  such  of  our  employes  as  were 
members  of  the  miners'  union  we  allege 
three  things,  which  were  the  supporting 
pillars  of  the  strike,  and  without  which 
the  strike  would  have  been  a failure: 

First — The  boycott. 

Second — Destruction  of  operators’  prop- 
erty. 

Third— Murder  and  persecution  of  non- 
union workers. 

Every  one  of  these  is  a crime.  Can 
they  be  proven? 

As  to  the  boycott:  It  is  no  doubt  the 
privilege  of  every  individual  in  this  coun- 
try to  deal,  to  associate  and  to  work 
with  whom  he  pleases,  providing  he  in- 
jures no  one  and  violates  no  law.  When 
he  goes  beyond,  this  and  conspires  with 
his  associates  to  injure  other  individuals 
in  their  social  or  business  relations,  ihen 
he  enters  the  region  of  lawlessness  and 
crime.  We  have  seen  in  the  late  strike 
that  the  boycotter  has  not  used  his  wea- 
pon to  conserve  his  own  pleasure,  con- 
venience or  necessity,  but  rather  at  the 
command  of  an  organized  body,  who  use 
him  as  a tool  to  accomplish  a purpose  of 
their  own.  The  boycott  itself  is  a method 
by  which  a person  may  exhibit  his  little- 
ness of  soul  and  natural  meanness  of 
disposition  to  great  advantage.  It  is  not 
a product  of  American  soil,  but,  like 
Canada  thistles  and  English  sparrows,  is 
an  imported  nuisance,  and  one  that 
ought  to  be  returned  to  the  place  from 


225 


whence  it  came.  A free-born  American 
citizen  has  no  use  for  a weapon  that 
seems  designed  mainly  to  inflict  pain 
and  suffering  on  helpless  women  and 
children.  The  man  who  turns  it  against 
an  innocent  school  girl,  simply  to  wring 
the  heart-strings  of  a fond  father  or 
brother,  compares  very  unfavorably  wi;h 
a wife-beater.  The  whipping  post  at  its 
best  could  do  him  scant  justice. 

Theater  of  Crime. 

Note  the  following: 

"These  coal  fields  for  twenty  years,  I 
may  say,  have  been  the  theater  of  the 
commission  of  crimes  such  as  our  very 
nature  revolts  at.  This  very  organiza 
tion  that  we  are  now,  for  the  first  time, 
exposing  to  the  light  ef  day,  has  hung 
like  a pall  over  the  people  of  this  coun- 
try. Before  it  fear  and  terror  fled  cower- 
ing to  homes  which  afforded  no  sanctuary 
against  the  vengeance  of  their  pursuers. 
Behind  it  stalked  darkness  and  despair, 
brooding  like  grim  shadows  over  the  des- 
olated hearth  and  the  ruined  home,  and 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  this 
fair  land  there  was  heard  the  voice  of 
wailing  and  lamentation  of  ‘Rachel  weep- 
ing for  her  children  and  refusing  to  be 
comforted  because  they  were  not.’  Nor 
is  it  alone  those  names  I have  mentioned 
—not  alone  the  prominent,  the  upright 
and  the  good  citizen  whose  remains  have 
been  interred  with  pious  care  in  the 
tombs  of  his  father;  but  it  is  the  hun- 
dreds of  unknown  victims  whose  bones 
now  lie  mouldering  over  the  face  of  this 
county.  In  hidden  places  and  by  silent 
paths  in  the  dark  ravines  of  the  moun- 
tains, and  in  the  secret  ledges  of  the 
rocks,  who  shall  say  how  many  bodies 
of  the  victims  of  this  order  now  await 
the  final  trump  of  God — and  from  those 
lonely  sepulchres  there  will  go  up  to  the 
God  who  gave  them  the  spirits  of  these 
murdered  victims,  to  take  their  place 
among  the  innumerable  throng  of  wit- 
nesses at  the  last  day,  and  to  confront 
with  their  presence  the  members  of  this 
ghastly  tribunal,  when  their  solemn  ac- 
cusation is  read  from  the  plain  command 
of  the  Decalogue,  Thou  shalt  not  kill.’  ” 

This  is  a picture  of  Schuylkill  county 
under  the  reign  of  the  Mollie  Maguires, 
drawn  by  Franklin  B.  Gowan,  who  knew 
whereof  he  spoke.  And  yet  the  Mollies, 
with  all  their  blackness  of  crime,  never 
made  war  on  women  and  children.  This 
lower  depth  was  only  reached  by  the 
boycotters  of  1902. 

The  destruction  of  the  operators'  prop- 
erty by  the  strikers  is  about  equally  re- 
markable for  malice  and  stupidity.  Just 
why  a workman  should  voluntarily  quit 
his  work  and  then  destroy  the  property 
of  the  owner  who  has  furnished  him  the 
means  of  supporting  his  family,  is  a puz- 
zle to  the  ordinary  observer.  The  stupid- 
ity of  such  action  is  well  illustrated  by 
the  destruction  of  mine  rumps  and  the 
consequent  filling  of  the  mines.  Then 
the  former  workmen  complain  that  they 
have  no  work!  A coachman  might  as 
well  poison  his  employer's  horses  and 
then  wonder  why  ho  had  no  team  to 
drive.  It  is  not  only  stupid,  but  it  is  a 
crime.  The  perpetrators  in  each  case  are 
promising  candidates  for  the  penitentiary, 
and  the  only  thing  that  stands  between 
them  and  their  election  and  installment  is 
their  modesty  in  announcing  their  ident- 
ity. 

Murder  and  Persecution. 

The  murder  and  persecution  of  non- 
union men  is  the  most  serious  offense, 
for  the  reason  that  it  affects  not  only 


226 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


individuals,  but  also  tlie  body  politic  ana 
the  well  being  of  the  state. 

It  may  be  urged  that  more  or  less  crime 
is  likely  to  be  conimitteed  by  all  large 
associations,  but  that  this  should  not  be 
charged  up  against  the  association  itself. 
This  may  be  true  where  the  moving 
cause  of  the  crime  is  personal  to  the  in- 
dividual, but  where  it  is  to  carry  out 
some  plan  or  purpose  of  the  organization, 
then  the  organizatirn  itself  is  equally 
guilty  with  the  perpetrator  of  the  deed. 

What  were  the  conditions  in  the  anthra- 
cite region  in  September  last?  The  strike 
had  reached  a stage  where  it  seemed  like- 
ly to  prove  a failure.  The  officers  of  the 
union  had  staked  their  official  existence 
on  their  success.  It  was  absolutely  nec- 
essary to  prevent  the  non-union  men  from 
resuming  work.  If  force  was  necessary, 
force  must  be  used,  and  force  was  used. 
Do  we  not  all  remember  that  in  Septem- 
ber there  was  a general  persecution  of 
those  who  wanted  to  worn,  ana  this  ex- 
tended from  Forest  City  to  the  Lykens 
valley?  And  yet  the  plaintiffs  in  this 
case  would  have  us  believe  that  this  was 
a mere  coincidence,  and  attributable  only 
to  personal  feuds  and  drunken  brawls. 
Was  it  a personal  feud  that  led  to  the 
stabbing,  nigh  unto  death,  of  the  two 
country  boys  at  Peckville,  by  men  they 
had  never  seen  or  known  before?  Was  the 
death  of  James  Winston,  who  had  not 
an  enemy  in  the  world,  due  to  a personal 
feud?  Were  the  dynamite  bombs  and 
the  stoning  of  the  houses  that  sheltered 
the  wives  and  children  of  non-union  men 
the  result  of  drunken  brawls?  Who  be- 
lieves, such  flimsy  excuses?  No  one.  Not 
even  those  who  make  them.  Neither  does 
any  one  believe  that  the  foreign  element, 
as  it  is  termed,  was  the  sole  element  in 
these  outrages.  They  were  pushed  to  the 
front,  but  others  with  more  cunning  and 
less  courage  lurked  in  the  rear.  By 
means  of  these  unlawful  acts  the  mem- 
bers of  the  union  succeeded  in  making  it 
so  unsafe  for  a non-union  man  to  work 
that  they  kept  away  from  the  mines. 
Who  can  blame  them?  “All  that  a man 
hath  will  he  give  for  his  life.”  Why 
should  he  have  risked  it  for  the  price  of 
a few  days’  work?  The  public  wanted 
coal.  The  union  would  not  let  it  be 
mined.  Of- course  each  union  man  had  a 
right  to  refrain  from  work  if  he  pleased, 
but  he  had  no  right  to  prevent  others 
who  wanted  to  work. 

Flimsy  Excuses. 

But  the  leader  of  the  union  men  says, 
we  are  not  guilty  because  we  do  not  know 
that  these  outrages  were  committed  by 
union  men:  and  even  if  we  did,  it  is  the 
law,  and  not  we,  that  should  punish.  He 
might  as  well  say  when  he  saw  women 
and  children  in  a burning  house  that  he 
would  not  attempt  to  put  out  the  fire  be- 
cause that  was  the  business  of  the  fire  de- 
partment. The  plea  will  not  avail.  If  Mr. 
Mitchell  does  not  know  that  the  members 
of  his  order  were  the  prime  movers  in  the 
outrages  against  persons  and  property,  he 
stands  solitary  and  alone  in  his  ignor- 
ance. Every  other  man.  woman  and 
child  in  the  coal  regions  knows  it  as  well 
as  he  knows  daylight  from  darkness. 
Whose  interest  was  it  to  kill,  burn  and 
destroy?  Not  the  operators,  for  they 
wanted  to  go  on  with  their  work.  Not 
the  non-union  men,  for  they  desired  to 
labor  for  bread  for  their  families.  Not 
the  general  public,  for  they  wanted  the 
coal  to  keep  them  from  perishing.  The 
Miners’  union  had  the  strongest  of  rea- 
sons for  the  terrorization  of  the  non- 


union men,  for  in  it  depended  their  hope 
of  success  and  increase  of  gain.  Any  im- 
partial jury  in  the  commonwealth  of 
Pennsylvania  would  convict  them  without 
leaving  the  box. 

No  Evidence  of  Disapproval. 

If  the  leaders  did  not  uphold  the  work 
of  their  ignorant  and  vicious  followers, 
where  is  the  evidence  of  their  disap- 
proval? Has  there  been  produced  a 
single  word  from  any  record,  resolution 
or  instruction  showing  that  the  leaders 
were  not  part  and  parcel  of  the  whole 
body  in  every  respect?  It  is  true  some 
of  them  testified,  in  the  mild  way,  that 
they  did  not  approve  what  had  been 
done,  but  such  declarations  were  merely 
perfunctory.  It  is  easy  to  lie  with  the 
mouth  but  not  with  the  hands.  The  un- 
faithful servant  said,  I go  sir,  but  after- 
wards he  went  not.  So  long  as  the  hands 
of  the  leaders  are  reaching  out  after  the 
monthly  dues  of  the  “foreign  element,” 
so  long  will  the  public  refuse  to  believe 
that  they  are  really  ashamed  of  their 
associations.  If  they  are  honest  in  their 
condemnation,  let  them  show  their  faith 
by  their  works.  Bet  them  “come  up  out 
of  the  mire,”  place  their  feet  on  the  solid 
ground  of  law  and  order  and  bring  forth 
fruits  meet  for  repentance.  No  such 
fruits,  nor  even  preliminary  blossoms, 
had  appeared  in  the  month  of  October 
last. 

It  was  at  this  stage  that  this  commis- 
sion was  appointed.  Ostensibly  it  was  se- 
lected to  adjudge  the  difference  between 
the  coal  operators  and  their  employes. 

In  reality  the  contest  is  between  the 
American  people  on  the  one  side  and  the 
union  miners  on  the  other,  and  the  issue 
is  to  determine  whether  the  people  may 
have  coal,  except  upon  such  terms  as  the 
union  may  prescribe.  It  is  an  experiment 
and  may  or  may  not  be  successful.  When 
a body  of  men  find  they  can  make  more 
money  by  idleness  half  the  time  than  by 
working  all  the  Bme,  they  are  very  likely 
to  overwork  their  new  discovery.  The 
tiger  that  has  tasted  blood  will  hardly 
be  induced  to  confine  itself  to  a diet  ot 
milk.  Some  day  the  public  will  become 
tired  of  being  taxed  without  authority  of 
law  by  this  imported  power  from  Europe, 
and  will  turn.  At  present  it  is  on  its 
knees,  wondering  if  it  will  be  permitted 
to  live  till  the  summer  comes  again. 

And  now  we  come  to  the  most  impor- 
tant part  of  the  work  of  this  commission, 
the  framing  of  its  decree. 

We  take  it  that  under  present  condi- 
tions any  provision  for  mining  by  weight 
where  the  same  is  not  now  practiced,  is 
out  of  the  question.  Tt  would  require  a 
special  examination  by  the  commission, 
of  every  vein  and  almost  every  working 
in  the  whole  northern  region.  In  the 
southern  region  it  is  admitted  to  be  im- 
practicable, and  not  wanted  even  by  the 
miners  themselves.  The  eight-hour 
working  day  could  only  at  nest  ne  ap- 
plied to  a few  mine  workings,  because 
the  large  majority  of  them  work  by  con- 
tract. If  the  few  outside  and  inside  com- 
pany men  were  given  eight  hours  it  would 
mean  only  eight  hours  breaker  time  un- 
der all  conditions,  and  this  might  cause 
a loss  not  only  to  the  company  but  to  the 
men  also.  There  seems  to  be  very  little 
agitation  for  an  eight-hour  day  except 
among  the  leaders,  who  do  not  work  at 
all. 

As  to  Wages. 

As  to  w’ages,  it  is  not  so  much  the  ne- 
cessities or  the  equities  of  the  workman 
as  it  is  the  sudden  discovery  that  they 


have  the  necessary  force  that  brings 
about  the  present  condition.  But  this 
commission  sits  to  recognize  equities, 
notp  owers. 

If  mine  workers  are  underpaid  why 
does  the  unskilled  emigrant  from  Europe 
make  a bee  line  for  the  coal  regions?  Is 
it  because  the  pay  is  better  or  the  work 
easier  than  that  of  other  employments 
they  are  qualified  to  perrorm?  Why  does 
a surplus  of  them  linger  aDOut  the  coal 
works  hoping  to  get  a job,  instead  of 
seeking  other  employment?  It  is  simply 
because  they  know  they  are  better  paid 
for  the  same  amount  of  work  than  in 
any  other  work  they  are  able  to  do.  We 
submit  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  evi 
dence  showing  any  basis  for  a demand 
for  increase  of  -wages  at  the  present  time, 
unless  it  be  the  ability  to  enforce  it.  Ths 
unerring  symptom  of  underpay  and  over- 
work in  any  vocation  is  the  fact  that  the 
workers  themselves  gradually  leave  it. 
Is  there  any  such  indication  in  this  case'. 
On  the  contrary,  quite  the  reverse.  It 
the  wages  were  not  high  the  men-  could 
not  support  themselves,  a costly  strike, 
and  a large  body  of  nor-producing  drones 
at  the  same  time. 

If  this  commission  shall  conclude  to 
grant  any  or  all  of  the  demands  of  the 
plaintiff,  then  we  representing  as  attor- 
neys, our  employers,  shall  most  earn- 
estly and  with  all  the  power  of  persua- 
sion that  we  possess,  contend  that  any 
benefits  granted  to  our  employes  shall 
only  be  on  their  agreement  to  observe 
three  conditions,  as  follows: 

First— No  boycott. 

Second— No  willful  destruction  or  injury 
of  our  property. 

Third— No  interference  with  our  non- 
union employes. 

Cases  Cited. 

We  take  it  that  counsel  for  plaintiffs 
will  make  no  objection  to  this,  for  to 
run  counter  to  either  of  the  above  pro- 
positions would  be  a violation  of  law.  We 
have  frequently  seen  it  stated  in  print 
that  the  miners  desire  nothing  so  much 
as  to  be  peaceful  and  law-abiding.  They 
will,  no  doubt,  be  willing  and  anxious  to 
put  their  protestations  in  the  form  of  an 
agreement.  But  whether  agreed  to  cr 
not,  we  ask  this  commission  to  embody 
it  in  this  decree.  Why  do  we  ask  this? 
Because  our  employes  are  not  as  other 
men.  When  a clerfc  or  farm  laborer  quits 
work,  or  is  discharged  and  paid  in  full, 
he  looks  for  another  place.  Our  em- 
ployes, on  the  contrary,  claim  to  have  a 
perpetual  vested  interest  in  our  works, 
with  the  right  to  say  when  and  how  they 
shall  be  worked  and  whom  we  shall  em- 
ploy. and  such  claim  is  maintained  by 
riot,  bloodshed  and  destruction  of  our 
property.  That  such  claim  has  no  foun- 
dation in  law  or  common  sense  goes 
without  saying;  and  yet,  apparently  in- 
telligent men  speak  of  a miner’s  job,  or 
miner’s  place,  as  though  it  were  not 
simply  a myth,  a figment  of  the  imagin- 
ation. 

The  case  of  commonwealth  vs.  Curren, 
(3  Pittsburg  Reports  143),  seems  to  he 
conclusive  on  this  point.  The  judge 
says: 

"Curren  claimed  that  the  gangway  be- 
longed to  him;  that  is.  that  he  had  once 
been  employed  in  that  gangway  by  some 
former  proprietor,  and  therefore  he  had 
the  right  to  work  there  ever  after." 

The  judge  very  properly  treated  the  a’- 
leged  owner  of  the  gangway  as  a proper 
subject  for  correction,  fined  him  $100  and 
put  him  in  jail  for  thirty  days. 

It  16  easily  apparent  that  the  relation 


between  operator  and  mine  worker  is  ore 
of  contract,  and  that  the  contract  is 
clearly  binding  on  both  sides.  If  the 
miner  owns  the  job,  the  operator  owns 
the  jobber.  If  the  miner  can  stay  for- 
ever, then  the  employer  can  hold  him 
for  the  same  length  of  time.  The  right 
to  hold  is  as  good  as  the  right  to  stay, 
and  both  are  good  for  nothing. 

Will  it  be  urged  by  our  opponents  that 
the  commission  has  no  power  to  impose 
conditions,  and  that  it  is  confined  solely 
to  a granting  or  refusal  of  the  miners 
demands?  Such  ground  would  not  be 
well  taken.  In  Allegheny  City  vs.  Rail- 
way Co.,  (159  Pa.,  411),  the  question  came 
before  our  Supreme  court  as  to  the  right 
of  a municipality  to  impose  conditions 
with  its  consent  to  a street  railway  com- 
pany to  occupy  its  streets.  Our  constitu- 
tion provides  (Art.  17,  sec.  9),  that  no 
street  railway  shall  be  constructed  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  municipality.  Jus- 
tice Mitchell,  in  his  opinion,  says: 

“The  man  who  can  give  the  whole  can 
give  part,  or  who  can  grant  absolutely 
can  grant  with  a reservation  or  other 
condition.  * * * The  power  of  the  mui- 
cipal  authority  to  give  or  refuse  consent 
is  unlimited  and  unqualified.  That  neces- 
sarily implies  the  power  to  impose  rea- 
sonable conditions,  in  giving  their  as- 
sent. * * * ‘i  have  the  sole  and  exclu- 
sive power  to  consent  or  refuse.  On  cer- 
tain conditions,  I consent,  otherwise  I re- 
fuse. I don’t  compel  you  to  do  anything, 
I merely  give  you  a choice  between  alter- 
natives; you*  have  no  power  or  right  to 
demand  my  consent,  you  ask  it  and  I 
give  it  on  my  own  terms,  or  not  at  all.’  ” 

If  I am  correct  in  stating  that  this 
commission  has  the  power  in  framing  its 
decree  to  impose  conditions  on  one  cr 
both  the  parties  concerned,  then*  the 
question  is,  whether  such  discretion 
should  be  exercised. 

And  just  here,  let  me  suggest  to  this 
commission  the  important  difference  be- 
tween a recommendation  and  a decree. 
A decree  can  be  enforced;  a recommen- 
dation cannot.  If  we  are  called  upon  1o 
pay  an  increase  of  wages,  we  care  not 
how  binding  may  be  the  conditions  cf 
the  judgment  of  this  tribunal,  but  at  tie 
same  time  we  want  those  who  receive 
this  benefit  to  be  just  as  strongly  bourd 
to  keep  the  peace,  and  not  to  unlawfully 
interfere  with  our  property  and  work- 
men. Our  faith  that  our  employes  will 
voluntarily  adopt  recommendations  for 
our  benefit,  is  much  smaller  than  a grain 
of  mustard  seed.  But  if  the  mutual  ob- 
ligations are  embodied  in  the  same  de- 
cree, then  both  are  equally  bound.  We 
do  not  want  one  side  to  be  held  with  a 
rope  of  sand  and  the  other  with  a 
cable. 

This  commission  was  appointed  to  set- 
tle the  differences  between  the  parties. 
A recommendation  is  not  a settlement, 
and  we  do  not  want  it. 

An  Arbitrary  Government. 

The  miners’  union  is  a governmert 
within  a government.  It  is  not  only  ar- 
bitrary to  its  own  members  and  those 
with  whom  it  does  business,  but  it  ;s 
also  more  or  less  a menace  to  the  stabil- 
ity of  our  state  and  national  govern- 
ments. For  these  reasons,  the  operato;  s 
refused  to  submit  for  arbitration  to  this 
or  any  other  jurisdiction,  the  question  cf 
recognition  of  this  union.  They -did  not, 
and  will  not  consider  such  a proposition. 
The  terms  of  the  submission,  by  which 
this  tribunal  was  brought  into  existence, 
expressly  precludes  it. 

It  is  tyrannical  with  those  with  whom 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


it  does  business.  Ordinary  people,  when 
they  want  to  stop  another  man’s  work, 
have  to  apply  to  court  for  an  injunction, 
and  incur  the  cost  and  delay  of  a pro- 
ceeding in  court.  The  walking  delegate, 
or  the  president  of  a local,  merely  raises 
his  hand  and  says,  “Come  out.”  There 
is  trial,  judgment  and  execution,  all  in  a 
wave  of  the  hand.  It  may  ruin  the  man 
on  whose  property  the  work  is  being 
done,  but  there  is  no  redress.  The  work- 
man who  strikes  is  independently  poor, 
and  the  walking  delegate  is  independent, 
whether  poor  or  not.  It  is  on  record  in 
the  evidence  in  this  case  that  the  owner 
of  a coal  mine  sought  from  the  presi- 
dent of  a local  permission  to  build  a 
boiler  plant  on  his  own  land,  with  h s 
own  material  and  labor  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  his  mine  from  being 
flooded  and  destroyed.  Permission  could 
not  be  obtained  and  the  building  was 
stopped.  A judge  of  our  courts  who 
would  attempt  the  same  thing  would  be 
impeached. 

The  president  of  this  commission  has 
said  he  hates  tyranny.  Every  true 
American  does  the  same.  And  yet  what 
must  he  think  of  the  tyranny  that  over- 
rides and  breaks  down  the  Bill  of  Rights 
of  the  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania? 
That  dictates  to  the  operator  how  he 
shall  use  his  own  property,  and  to  the 
laborer,  when  and  for  whom  he  may 
work?  A tyranny  and  malignity  that 
spares  neither  the  cradle,  the  grave,  or 
the  altar.  The  lifeless  clay  of  the  dead 
miner  they  will  not  assist  in  burying  be- 
cause in  life  he  was  a “scab.”  The  bride 
is  separated  from  her  husband  before  the 
marriage  service  is  an  hour  old,  and 
dynamite  Is  exploded  against  a house 
wherein  are  helpless  babes  and  their 
mother.  It  Is  an  old  maxim  of  the  law 
that  he  who  comes  into  a court  of  equity 
must  come  with  clean  hands.  Are  the 
hands  of  these  plaintiffs  clean  or  are 
they  soiled  with  violations  of  law  and 
red  with  the  blood  of  innocent  victims? 

I trust  I make  myself  clear.  I dery 
the  right  of  no  man  to  pursue  his  happi- 
ness, subject  only  to  the  law  of  the  land. 
I do  deny  the  right  of  one  man  to  con- 
trol another,  except  by  the  process  of 
law.  There  are  some  men  so  weakly 
constituted  that  they  blindly  grope  for 
a leader  to  lean  upon.  Such  men  nat- 
urally seek  a union.  The  power  of  num- 
bers gives  them  the  confidence  they 
would  not  have  when  standing  alone. 
But  there  are  other  men  who  are  con- 
scious of  their  ability  to  stand  alone  and 
whose  knees  do  not  easily  bend.  Before 
all,  they  dislike  to  take  orders  from 
petty  commanders  and  self-constituted 
tribunals.  They  are  non-unionists.  They 
are  entitled  to  equal  rights,  privileges 
and  protection  with  all  the  other  citi- 
zens of  the  commonwealth.  Are  they  re- 
ceiving it?  Let  the  records  of  this  com- 
mission show.  To  ignore  those  who  want 
to  think  and  act  for  themselves  is  to 
build  up  the  association’s  work.  The 
leaders  do  the  thinking  for  the  masses. 
Such  is  always  a menace  to  a free  gov- 
ernment. The  dangerous  man  is  he  who 
has  a power  without  responsibility.  It 
needs  no  prophetic  vision  to  look  ahead 
to  what  may  happen,  even  in  the  near 
future. 

Plea  for  Independent  Workers. 

Suppose  the  first  of  April  arrives  and 
no  agreement  is  reached  in  the  soft  coal 
regions.  At  the  same  time,  the  report 
of  this  commission  fails  to  satisfy  the 
plaintiffs.  The  same  general  commands 
both  armies.  Suppose  a general  strike  is 


227 


ordered.  In  about  four  weeks,  the  whole 
country  will  again  be  on  its  knees,  cry- 
ing: What  shall  we  do  to  be  saved;  and 
the  answer  comes:  Pay  us  more  wages. 
What  reply  will  we  make  to  that?  It 
will  be  too  early  to  appoint  another  com- 
mission. Nothing  can  be  expected  from 
the  politicians.  Nine-tenth  of  them  are 
rank  cowards  and  will  run  like  a dog 
with  a tin  kettle  tied  to  its  tall  at  the 
first  intimation  of  losing  a lot  of  votes. 
I can  see  no  better  remedy  than  to  hold 
up  the  hands  of  the  men  who  have  the 
ability  to  think  and  the  courage  to  die 
for  what  they  believe  to  be  right.  Will 
this  commission  do  it?  To  some  men 
come  great  opportunities.  Fortunate  are 
they  who  have  the  strength  and  patriot- 
ism to  perform  their  task.  More  than  a 
century  and  a quarter  ago  some  great 
men  stood  up  in  Independence  Hall,  not 
half  a dozen  squares  from  here,  and  de- 
clared for  the  great  principles  that  lie 
at  the  foundation  of  this  government. 
They  declared  against  taxation  without 
representation,  but  were  they  thinking  of 
the  few  paltry  pounds,  shillings  and 
pence  that  covered  the  value  of  the  tea 
thrown  into  Boston  harbor;  or  were  they 
concerned  with  the  great  principle  of  no 
tax  without  value  received?  Taxation 
without  benefit  is  robbery.  If  we  a-  e 
taxed  for  the  benefit  of  these  plaintiffs, 
we  ask  for  some  benefit  in  return;  net 
a pecuniary  value;  but  we  demand,  not 
in  insolent  defiance,  but  as  humble  citi- 
zens of  this  state,  that  protection  and 
safety  for  ourselves  and  employes  that 
is  guaranteed  us  by  the  Bill  of  Righ  s 
of  the  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania. 
Shall  we  get  it?  We  may,  but  we  fear 
not  from  the  usual  authorities.  That 
portion  of  the  state  of  Pennsylvania 
within  the  anthracite  coal  fields  has  two 
governors;  one  located  at  Harrisburg, 
the  other  out  on  the  prairies  of  Illinois. 
One  sends  his  10,000  troops  into  the  fie'd, 
and  the  helpless  non-union  man  is  mur- 
dered within  the  shadow  of  the  tents  of 
his  soldiers.  The  other  issues  his  ukas  s 
and  orders  of  council  a thousand  miles 
beyond  the  borders  of  our  state,  and  they 
are  obeyed  with  the  blind  obedience  of 
the  patient  ox  that  treads  the  furrow. 

But  you,  gentlemen,  can.  with  a stroke 
of  a pen,  do  that  which  ten  thousand 
bayonets  could  not  accomplish.  You  oc- 
cupy an  enviable  position.  You  are  nrf 
in  the  devious  ways  of  politics  and  you 
are  not  candidates  for  re-election.  Ti  e 
country  expects  much  of  you.  You  are 
striving,  to  the  best  of  your  ability,  to 
meet  its  expectation.  The  people  are 
looking  to  find  you  not  in  the  fog  and 
miasma  of  the  valley  of  Policy  and  Ex- 
pediency, but  high  up  on  the  mountain, 
with  your  feet  on  the  solid  rock  of 
Principle,  and  your  heads  in  the  pure  air 
and  shining  lights  of  the  Heavens,  there 
to  pronounce  a judgment  that  will  pro- 
tect the  weak  and  lowly,  restrain  the 
strong,  and  do  equal  and  exact  justice 
to  all. 


ARGUMENT  OF 

JUSTICE  ALFRED  HAND 

If  the  commission  please.  I wish  to 
save  time  and  I will  file  a brief  instead  of 
making  my  argument  oral.  It  is  a case  in 
which  I think  speech  is  silver  and  silence 
is  gold. 

At  the  request  of  a witness.  Howell 
Harris,  whom  your  honors  will  recollect 
was  called  by  the  operators,  an  intelli- 
gent mine  foreman  who  commenced  to 
work  in  the  mines  at  nine  years  of  ag' 


228 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


and  reached  the  highest  position  in  the 
mines,  the  question  ■was  asked  of  him  to 
give  his  various  objections  to  tne  differ- 
ent modes  of  paying  for  coal.  He  has  em- 
bodied his  own  views  in  a paper  which  I 
offer  to  the  commission,  a copy  of  which 
I will  hand  to  the  other  side.  It  is  a 
compromise  between  the  weignt  and  by 
the  car.  To  state  it  briefly,  it  is,  that 
each  car  for  each  vein  should  be  a stand- 
ard car  numbered1  with  the  contents  of  the 
car  put  upon  it  in  pounds.  Also  the  quan- 
tity which  every  inch  )f  topping  would 
add  to  that  car.  To  have  constantly  in 
the  mines  tables  put  up  so  that  every 
miner  would  not  have  to  make  any  cal- 
culation. If  he  put  on  six  inches  of  top- 
ping, it  would  mean  so  many  tons.  The 
fixed  tonnage  of  the  car  is  put  upon  the 
car.  This  notice  put  up  in  the  mine  would 
give  just  how  much  every  inch  of  top- 
ping would  add  to  the  weight  of  the  car. 
That  is  his  plan  and  I offer  it  in  his  be- 
half for  the  consideration  of  the  com- 
mission. 

An  Issue  of  Importance. 

Never  in  the  history  of  this  country, 
since  the  American  Revolution,  has  there 
been  presented  an  issue  of  any  greater 
importance  than  that  wblch  this  com- 
mission is  called  upon  to  consider.  This 
issue  is  intensified  because  in  its  insig- 
nificant elements,  when  -we  consider  the 
territory  out  of  which  it  comes  (eight 
counties  of  the  state),  and  the  single  in- 
dustry it  involves  (also  insignificant  os 
compared  with  all  other  industries),  it 
also  involves  the  good  fellowship  of  the 
American  people,  and  introduces  unjusti- 
fiable hate,  a threatening  of  the  underly- 
ing principles  of  the  republic,  which  in- 
sure liberty  of  the  individual,  and  by 
consequence  of  the  nation,  and  introduces 
a change  to  a democracy,  the  weakest 
and  worst  form  cf  government,  because 
it  means  anarchy  under  the  euphonious 
name  of  socialism.  Nay,  it  Is  worse  than 
that.  It  presents  under  the  form  of  a 
self-constituted  class  organization  an  im 
perium  in  imperio,  which  robs  the  re- 
public of  its  true  sphere  in  human  prog- 
ress, and  presents  a constant  clashing 
with  the  constituted  governmental  ele- 
ments of  the  freest  and  best  government 
(on  earth.  Those  elements  are  the  execu- 
tive, the  judiciary  and  the  legislative 
power.  It  paralyzes  the  militia,  which  in 
a healthy  republic  without  the  firing  of  a 
gun  would  prevent  riot  and  anarchy  and 
preserve  peace.  This  has  been  done  by 
an  insidious  and  constant  clamor  of  com- 
plaint false  in  fact,  false  in  impulse,  and 
false  in  theory,  by  a poisoning  of  the 
moral  sentiment  of  the  public  througn 
false  declamation  and  false  emanations 
of  the  press,  nay,  even  the  pulpit,  until 
this  small  territory  of  the  anthracite, 
which  compares  most  favorably  with  all 
the  republic  in  the  arts  of  peace,  the 
growing  cultivation  and  intelligence  of 
its  inhabitants,  the  prosperity  of  all,  even 
the  mining  population,  and  the  unques- 
tioned worth  of  its  eleemosynary  insti- 
tutions, has  become  the  target  of  the 
remainder  of  the  republic.  The  bullets 
and  bludgeons  of  sarcasm  and  selfish 
greed  which  have  been  hurled  at  the  peo- 
ple of  this  territory  are  a libel  on  the 
good  people  dwelling  therein  which  is  a 
shame  to  the  republic. 

Heal  Cause. 

The  real  cause  of  it  all  is  the  existence 
and  introduction  of  a foreign  organized 
association,  founded  upon  the  assumed 
principle  of  the  legality  of  a strike,  which 


means  a denial  of  individual  right,  a 
contempt  of  constituted  authority,  a de- 
fiance of  the  principles  of  the  republic, 
and  the  substitution  of  socialistic  and  an- 
archistic principles  as  wicxed  as  hell, 
conceived  in  secrecy,  and  with  a plausible 
exterior  which  gives  it  currency. 

With  an  experience  of  forty-three  years' 
residence  in  this  anthracite  legion,  in 
which  I have  witnessed  the  growth  of 
its  business,  its  industries,  and  the  intel- 
ligence and  moral  uplift  of  its  people, 
with  its  churches,  its  charity,  its  pros- 
perity and  its  purity  equal  to  any  sec- 
tion of  the  republic,  knowing  its  struggles 
and  successes  in  coping  with  the  issue 
of  capital  and  labor,  I do  not  hesitate  to 
say  on  my  own  responsibility  that  the  im- 
pression left  on  a mind  of  on»y  ordinary 
intelligence  and  judgment,  is  that  the 
greatest  curse  ever  introduced  intoi  the  an- 
thracite region,  proved  by  the  facts  and 
results,  and  which  in  my  judgment  will 
bear  evil  fruit  for  an  entire  generation, 
has  been  the  strike  inaugurated  under  tho 
auspices  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  ot 
America,  which  by  its  title  "of  America" 
and  its  efforts  assumes  to  govern  and 
control  the  labor  of  the  western  nemi- 
sphere  and  bring  in  the  halcyon  days  cf 
socialism.  I join  with  the  only  voice 
heard  in  this  confusion,  that  of  Father 
O'Reilly,  which  like  the  pure  clarion  tones 
of  a resounding  bell,  still  reverberates 
over  the  republic,  that  the  only  cause  of 
all  the  disquieting  of  mind  and  the  up- 
heaval of  peace  and  prosperity  to  the 
miner  and  the  community,  was  the  ad- 
vent of  the  recognized  head  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America  from  a foreign 
state  into  the  anthracite  fields.  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  the  poison  and  the  power  of 
this  association  have  silenced  even  this 
voice  since  last  summer? 

President’s  Letter. 

I have  tried  to  express  some  of  the 
greater  issues  involved  in  this  conflict. 
Let  us  now  look  at  the  issue  upon  the 
record.  It  is  one  issue  in  the  pleadings 
but  multiplied  in  the  evidence.  His  ex- 
cellency, President  Roosevelt,  presents  it 
In  his  letter  of  instructions  in  the  follow- 
ing words:  “A  commission  to  inquire 
Into,  consider  and  pass  upon  the  ques- 
tions in  controversy  in  connection  with 
the  strike  in  the  anthracite  regions,  ard 
the  causes  out  of  which  the  controversy 
arose. 

"You  will  endeavor  to  establish  the 
relations  between  employers  and  the 
wage-workers  in  the  anthracite  fields  on 
a just  and  permanent  basis,  and.  as  far 
as  possible,  to  do  away  with  any  causes 
for  the  recurrence  of  such  difficulties  as 
those  which  you  have  been  called  on 
to  settle.’’ 

This  statement  was  founded  upon  the 
submission  to  his  excellency  of  the  let- 
ter of  the  railroad  corporations  and  the 
answer  of  John  Mitchell,  president  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America.  It 
presents  a single  issue  as  stated. 

A somewhat  different  issue  is  presented 
before  the  commission.  Whether  it  ac- 
cepts it  or  not  is  with  the  commission, 
who  must  be  responsible  for  it  if  it  does. 
It  Is  presented  by  John  Mitchell  In  h s 
opening  and  written  statement,  and  the 
answers  thereto  by  the  several  parties, 
called  ordinarily  defendants  or  operators, 
In  their  answers  filed.  This  issue  Is  sim- 
ply stated.  An  agreement,  any  agree- 
ment, with  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  I will  not  discuss,  but  will 
make  the  remark  that  It  should  have  ro 
place  before  this  commission,  in  so  far 
as  It  differs  from  the  issue  presented  by 


the  president.  First,  for  the  reason  that 
In  so  far  as  it  differs,  it  presents  a most 
dangerous  element  of  discord  for  the 
peace  of  the  republic,  and,  judging  from 
the  American  spirit,  as  represented  by 
the  people  of  the  United  States  up  to  the 
present  time,  will  mean,  in  the  end.  civil 
war.  Second,  it  violates  every  princip'e 
of  established  law  and  mutual  respect 
and  public  economy  by  the  introducti  n 
of  a third  irresponsible  party  to  every 
contract,  which  should  only  be  between 
the  two  parties  directly  concerned.  It 
assumes  the  office  of  government,  an'’, 
with  all  its  plausible  promises,  and  shoi  t 
experience,  has  earned  no  permane  t 
success  to  justify  its  taking  the  place  in 
any  respect  of  the  republic. 

Militia. 

A third  issue  is  presented  which  comes 
from  the  testimony  entirely  as  taken, 
and  which  is  of  a most  important  char- 
acter, and  if  considered,  should  receive 
the  most  careful  consideration.  For  this 
reason,  I single  out  this  fact,  among 
others  in  which  the  evidence  differs 
from  the  pleadings.  I refer  to  the  in- 
troduction of  the  acts  of  the  militia,  or 
rather,  the  militia  itself.  It  involves  the 
whole  history  of  strikes  in  Pennsylvania 
and  involves  the  honor  and  credit  of  the 
state.  So  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  the 
militia  were  inadequate  to  preserve  the 
peace  and  secure  by  non-action  the 
rights  of  the  individual  worker  and  of 
private  property.  The  Constitution  of 
Pennsylvania  has  always  preserved  to 
the  people  the  right  to  bear  arms  In  self 
defense.  The  action  of  courts  and  the 
successful  rendition  of  verdicts  for  a 1 
time  have  preserved  this  right,  even 
against  the  assaults  of  strikes.  General 
Gobin  has  said  it  would  require  fifty 
thousand  troops  to  furnish  each  work- 
ing pjan  in  the  anthracite  regions  with  a 
proper  guard  for  himself  and  his  fami  y 
while  at  work  and  going  to  and  from  his 
work.  He  has  not  said  that  it  would  re- 
quire that  number  if  each  laborer  was 
also  himself  armed  (not  with  concealed 
weapons,  but  with  open  arms).  It  is  a 
proved  fact  that  with  this  self-protec- 
tion. the  two  other  and  largest  strikes 
In  Pennsylvania,  at  least  in  the  northern 
part,  were  quelled  and  the  wholt  region 
began  work  under  the  concurrent  arm- 
ing of  the  individual  worker  by  himself, 
with  the  presence  of  the  militia.  I need 
not  remind  the  commission  that  it  is 
proved  argumentatively,  at  least,  in  this 
last  most  iniquitous  and  formidable 
strike,  the  same  remedy  would  have 
produced  the  same  result.  It  is  on  the 
record  now  in  this  commission  that  not 
a pistol  or  gun  was  fired  or  presented 
by  the  miners  in  self-defense,  save  the 
sole  unloaded  gun  presented  by  the  true 
woman  who  testified  to  it  on  the  witness 
stand  and  protected  herself  from  the 
infuriated  mob,  among  whom  was  her 
own  brother-in-law. 

I take  up  now  the  several  issues  pre 
eented  by  the  whole  record. 

1.  An  increase  of  20  per  cent  upon  the 
prices  of  1901. 

The  First  Issue. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  would 
amount  to  30  per  cent,  of  the  prices  or 
1900.  A demand  for  increase  of  wages 
may  always  be  considered  a fair  issue 
between  employer  and  employe.  During 
the  last  twenty-three  years  prices  have 
been  voluntarily  increased  by  the  op- 
erators four  times;  they  have  been  de- 
creased three  times.  At  the  present  time, 
so  far  as  the  evidence  in  this  case  is  con- 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


220 


eerned,  as  a claim  made  when  it  first  was 
made,  the  reasons  for  the  claim  as  stated 
in  the  opening  on  the  part  of  the  miners, 
have  not  been  sustained.  Whether  the  in- 
creased prosperity  and  increase  of  wages 
in  other  callings  justifies  a suggested  in- 
crease by  the  commission  is  for  them  *o 
decide.  Truth  requires,  however,  that 
we  should  state  that  not  a single  one  of 
the  nine  reasons  given  for  this  20  per 
cent,  increase  has  been  sustained  by  the 
evidence,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  has 
been  shown  that  it  is  unreasonable  as 
compared  with  the  same  class  of  labor 
in  other  callings.  We  further  submit  to 
the  commission  that  this  question  or 
wares  is  really  the  only  proper  issue  now 
involved.  All  the  others  should  be  nega- 
tived, and  many  of  them  so  emphatically 
as  to  assure  the  public  and  all  wage 
wmrkers  of  their  individual  right  to  labor 
and  to  be  protected  in  that  labor,  both 
in  person  and  in  their  families. 

2.  Reductions  of  hours  of  labor. 

The  reduction  of  hours  of  labor  against 
the  will  and  contract  of  each  individual 
laborer  should  not  be  countenanced  by 
this  commission  nor  by  law,  but  should 
be  left  as  it  always  had  been  to  the  eon- 
tractural  relation  between  employer  and 
employe.  This  independence  of  the  peo- 
ple individually  is  vital  to  their  prosper- 
ity. TTnder  this  principle  for  twenty- 
three  years  in  a part  of  the  anthracite 
field  and  for  thirty  years  in  another 
part  of  it,  the  miners  and  their  employers 
have  settled  their  differences  without 
quarrel  and  without  a strike.  The  pic- 
tures of  tyranny  and  starvation  during 
this  period  are  a myth.  It  would  seem 
as  if  this  fact  was  an  answer  and  a pro- 
test to  the  claim  of  an  association  of  an- 
most  singular  connection  of  this  claim 
has  been  made  by  the  officers  and  coun- 
sel of  the  plaintiffs  in  this  case,  with 
the  order  to  the  pumpmen  and  the  engi- 
neers to  go  out  upon  strike  unless  an 
eight-hour  day  to  labor  was  given  to 
them  without  reduction  of  pay.  And  the 
learned  counsel  with  his  ingenuity  has  in 
substance  put  it  by  his  question  to  wit- 
ness repeatedly,  whether  he  would  prefer 
to  have  his  mine  filled  with  water  rather 
than  give  an  eight-hour  day,  or,  in  an- 
other form,  in  substance,  w'hether  the  op- 
erator was  not  himself  to  blame  for  his 
mine  being  filled  and  partially  or  wholly 
ruined  if  he  did  not  give  the  eight-hour 
day.  The  varied  answers  to  these  ques- 
tions may  possibly  have  induced  the  com- 
mission to  think  that  the  question  was  a 
fair  one,  and  whether  the  issue  in  that 
regard  is  fairly  presented  for  the  con- 
sideration of  this  commission.  The  first 
four  reasons  given  for  this  claim  are  un- 
tenable under  the  evidence.  The  fifth 
reason  is  best  left  for  the  interests  of 
the  employer  or  employe  to  decide  as 
regards  both  parties. 

Weighing  of  Coal. 

3.  The  weighing  of  coal  and  paying  for 
It  by  weight  wherever  practicable  at  the 
rate  of  sixty  cents  for  a legal  ton  of  2,_<j 
pounds. 

It  is  certain  that  there  Is  no  evidence 
that,  during  the  twenty-three  years  of 
quiet  in  the  mining  regions,  there  has 
been  any  considerable  demand  for  this 
mode  of  payment  or  any  considerable 
friction  between  employer  and  employe. 
The  operators  feel  certain  from  past  ex 
perience  that  the  first  party  who  would 
object  to  it,  if  it  should  be  Introduced, 
would  be  the  miner.  Wisdom  and  experi- 
ence demand  that  this  issue  should  be 
left  entirely  with  the  operator  and  the 


miner.  Under  any  one  of  the  three  modest*  (b)  The  right  of  proper  discipline  and 

in  existence,  whether  payment  is  byfff'  control  over  his  employe. 

weight  or  by  the  yard  or  by  the  car,  ft]  (c)  The  right  of  a fellow-laborer  to 


they  are  all  equally  fair.  They  can  al- 
ways be  tested  by  the  average  amount 
paid  for  the  ton  of  2,240  pounds  mer- 
chantable coal  which  is  the  output  of 
each  colliery.  It  has  not  been  put  in  the 
forms  for  statistics  furnished  the  opera- 
tors what  the  cost  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds 
paid  the  miner  has  been.  In  the  colliery 
of  William  Connell  & Co.  those  statistics 
were  prepared,  but  were  not  furnished 
because  not  demanded,  but  they  show 
that  from  1871  prior  to  the  strike  of  that 
year  down  to  1892  the  price  paid  per  ton 
to  the  miner  was  from  65  to  71  cents  per 
ton  of  2,240  pounds,  and  in  that  mine  the 
miner  has  always  been  paid  by  the  car. 
During  a large  portion  of  that  time  the 
price  at  which  the  coal  was  sold  to  the 
Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
Railroad  company  was  regulated  on  the 
sliding  scale  of  labor  in  the  collieries  of 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
Railroad  company,  so  that  so  far  as 
those  collieries  are  concerned  the  above 
statement  is  a fair  statement  of  what 
was  paid  the  miner  by  that  company  in 
the  collieries  on  which  the  price  was 
based.  The  mining  engineer  of  that  com- 
pany, Howell  Harris,  has  presented  a 
suggestion,  which  is  merely  a suggestion 
of  his,  in  which  the  commission  may  be 
interested,  and  it  is  presented  to  them  for 
their  perusal  if  they  desire,  in  another 
sheet. 

4.  Incorporation  of  an  agreement  be- 
tween the  United  Mine  "Workers  of 
America  and  the  operators. 

The  operators  consider  this  claim  as 
absolutely  out  of  the  question.  Aside 
from  that,  we  deem  it  an  introduction  of 
a third  party  wholly  alien  to  the  Ameri- 
can custom  of  contracting  and  wholly 
alien  to  the  laws  established  for  cen- 
turies under  the  two  freest  governments 
on  the  face  of  the  earth,  which  estab- 
lish, so  far  as  laws  can,  the  proper  re- 
lation between  employer  and  employe; 
and  its  introduction  would  involve  fo 
many  questions  on  different  subjects  of 
law  relating  to  the  transactions  of  life, 
that  it  would  interfere  with  and  confuse, 
not  only  the  public,  but  the  legal  mind, 
as  to  the  proper  situation  of  the  parties 
who  would  be  introduced  into  such  a 
contract.  Another  serious  objection  from 
a socialistic  standpoint  is  that  it  is  an 
attempt  to  introduce  a sort  of  paternal 
government  over  the  employe,  to  which 
the  employer  consents,  and  opens  the 
door  for  fearful  mingling  of  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  respectively  between 
employer  and  employe.  It  never  has  been 
tested  long  enough  to  justify  it.  It  con- 
tains a menace  of  populism  against  th  s 
free  republic,  the  product  of  centuries 
since  King  John  in  the  growth  of  liberty. 

Other  Questions  Involved. 

It  cannot  be  evaded  that  the  position 
taken  by  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  involves  a serious  attempt  to 
disturb  not  only  the  ordinary  relation  of 
employer  and  employe,  or  master  and 
servant,  as  stated  in  the  law  books,  and 
settled  by  custom  and  judicial  decision, 
but  also  to  disturb  and  overthrow  the 
rights  and  duties  which  both  employer 
and  employe  have  and  owe  to  society. 
The  following  rights  are  involved: 

(a)  The  right  of  the  employer  or  oper- 
ator to  have  and  enjoy  the  benefit  of  h's 
own  experience,  judgment  and  skill  in 
the  management  of  his  own  established 
Industry  for  the  benefit  of  himself  and 
employes. 


exercise  his  privilege  to  labor  and  to  sed 
it  at  such  price  as  is  satisfactory  to  him- 
self, and  to  demand  from  his  government 
full  protection  therein  without  being 
liable  to  threats  or  disgrace  from  ep.- 
thets  and  a false  public  sentiment. 

The  consensus  of  the  world's  wisdom 
and  experience,  up  to  the  present  day,  is 
that  labor  is  honorable  and  a duty,  ai  d 
idleness  an  evil.  If  a man  has  a right 
to  cease  labor,  and  to  cease  the  supp  rt 
of  his  family  a fortiori,  he  has  a right 
to  continue  to  labor.  There  is  no  such 
right  inherent  in  man  as  the  "right  to 
strike"  recognized  by  the  best  writers  cn 
economics  or  sociology.  A statute  in 
England  has  given  the  right  to  strike, 
under  certain  conditions,  but  with  such 
limitations  as  to  tend  to  prevent  all  such 
exhibitions  of  cruelty  and  terrorism  as 
has  been  manifested  in  the  last  strike  in 
the  anthracite  fields.  It  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow  that  when  men  combine  to 
deprive  themselves  of  their  ability  to 
support  their  families,  in  order  to  force 
employers  and  society  to  yield  to  thc.r 
demands  by  threat,  intimidation  and  in- 
jury to  property,  they  are  within  the 
embrace  of  a well-established  and  recog- 
nized right,  simply  because  there  is  i.o 
law  against  it.  The  laborer  with  tl  e 
right  owes  a corresponding  duty  some- 
where and  to  somebody  for  every  right 
he  enjoys.  Professor  Lieber,  as  a well- 
known  writer  on  civil  liberty  and  self- 
governement,  if  he  has  not  established 
this,  fully  recognizes  it.  He  says:  “In- 
dividualism, pure  and  simple,  is  anar- 
chy; socialism,  pure  and  simple  is  despot- 
ism and  tyranny."  The  republic  is 
neither.  Back  of  republics  and  govern- 
ments there  are  rights,  but  always  cor- 
responding rights. 

The  attempt  appears  open,  on  the  part 
of  the  miners’  representatives  in  this 
controversy,  to  introduce  a system  i f 
class  government,  without  becoming  le- 
sponsible,  in  any  form,  to  the  republic, 
either  state  or  nation,  that  class  govern- 
ment by  a majority  of  its  members,  com- 
posed as  it  is,  assuming  in  many  respects 
to  limit  and  control  the  proper  manage- 
ment of  the  coal  mines  in  the  anthrac  te 
region,  contrary  to  natural  order,  law 
and  custom  of  society.  It  also  seeks  to 
overthrow  or  at  least  abuse  the  liberty 
of  the  individual,  as  regulated  by  law, 
and  to  transfer  that  freedom  to  the 
members  of  the  class  which  they  hate 
organized  to  the  injury,  not  only  of  the  r 
fellow  laborers,  but  of  the  pubic  at 
large.  While  we  assume  that  this  can 
never  be  accomplished,  under  the  funda- 
mental principles  still  iiving  in  the 
breasts  of  the  American  people,  it  is  im- 
possible for  a thoughtful  mind  not  to 
understand  that,  if  the  questions  in- 
volved in  this  controversy,  outside  of  the 
mere  question  of  wages,  should  be  ( e- 
cided  in  favor  of  those  who  make  their 
complaints,  some  of  the  most  valuab  e 
principles  of  the  republic  would  be  over- 
thrown. It  is  an  expressed  attempt  lo 
degrade  this  republic  to  a democracy— 
the  worst  of  all  tryanny. 

Strikes. 

A singular  and  novel  doctrine  has  oeen 
enunciated  during  the  present  investiga- 
tion, namely,  that  w’hon  a majority  of 
miners  enter  upon  a stike,  every  min  r 
who  remains  at  his  post  of  duty  and 
continues  to  labor  or  takes  the  place  jf 
another  laborer,  must  surrender  his  right 
to  choose  to  labor,  and  be  considered  an 


230 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


outlaw  either  deprived  of  government- 
al protection  or  any  public  sentiment  of 
favor.  Is  it  possible  that  with  all  the  ex- 
perience of  strides  in  this  state  and 
country  they  are  entitled  to  any  recogni- 
tion as  a legal  entity?  So  far  as  experi- 
ence goes,  the  curse  of  this  union  is  that 
one  of  its  foundation  stones  is  the  strike. 
In  order  to  justify  it,  the  organizers  of 
this  strike  have  labored  hard  to  con- 
vince the  peaceable  and  satisfied  miners 
of  the  anthracite  region  that,  they  have 
a series  of  fearful  acts  of  tyranny  to  be 
delivered  from.  Past  experience  has  dem- 
onstrated to  the  fullc-st  establishment  of 
the  truth  that  strikes  cannot  maintain 
themselves  in  Pennsylvania  without  vio- 
lations of  law.  The  piesent  strike  was 
only  kept  alive  by  the  vilest  intimidation, 
the  most  wicked  causes  of  terrorism  to 
innocent  and  unprotected  families,  men, 
women  and  children.  It  has  disgraced 
the  fair  fame  of  Pennsylvania.  Idleness, 
intoxication,  fury  of  strikers,  contempt 
of  constituted  authorities,  demand  of  the 
union!  that  the  militia  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  protect  miners  willing  to  work, 
accepted  if  not  by  the  governor  by  the 
masses  of  people  as  a proper  and  justifi 
able  demand,  deaths  of  innocent  strikers 
and  officials,  the  debauchery  of  burgesses 
and  justices  of  the  peace,  so  extraordi- 
nary and  fearful  in  the  extreme  that  by 
their  very  intensity  they  have  paralyzed 
public  sentiment  to  such  a degree  that 
shame  rests  on  the  hitherto  fair  fame  of 
Pennsylvania.  For  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  this  state  its  citizens  have  been 
compelled  to  look  upon  the  success  of 
vicious  ruin,  a ruin  which  neither  law  nor 
justice  nor  the  militia  could  meet  or  pre- 
vent. Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves.  Be- 
fore we  talk  of  the  right  to  strike,  let  us 
know  what  a strike  means;  there  ought 
to  be  history  enough  to  define  it,  by  thi* 
time  from  experience,  and  not  theory. 

Strike  of  Pumpmen  and  Engineers. 

The  pumpmen  and  engineers  went  on 
strike  at  the  will  and  beck  of  the  officers 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America, 
a trust  imposed  upon  them  by  the  Sha- 
mokin  convention.  The  miners  who  im- 
posed that  trust,  and  the  officers  of  the 
union  who  accepted  it,  knew  very  well 
what  it  meant. 

It  was  supposed  it  would  terrorize  the 
operators  into  submission.  It  was  a wick- 
ed temptation  put  before  every  trusted 
employe  at  the  base  of  the  shaft  or  foot 
of  the  slope  to  betray  his  trust  and  leave 
his  post  of  duty.  It  involved  the  ruin  of 
some  mines,  the  absolute  ruin  of  the  pres- 
ent and  near  prospective  use  of  the  mines 
for  many  months,  and  with  some  for 
years  to  come.  It  was  a spite  to  employ- 
er, to  the  public,  an  exhibition  of  hate 
that  it  may  be  hoped  history  will  forget. 
If  this  generation  does  not  realize  it  pos- 
terity may,  that  the  acceptance  ot  a trust 
to  drown  out  the  mines  as  a penalty  im- 
posed by  a third  party,  an  irresponsible 
association,  between  an  employer  and  an 
employe,  on  the  claim  that  if  the  em- 
ployer on  ten  days’  notice  does  not  sub- 
mit to  an  eight-hour  day  for  his  skilled 
employe,  is  an  outrage  against  humanity, 
and  especially  so  when  It  is  sought  to  put 
the  blame  for  the  injury  caused  by  the 
destruction  of  the  mine,  on  the  employer. 
A trust  putting  it  in  the  discretion  of  a 
set  of  officers  to  burn  the  breaker  if  an 
eight-hour  day  is  not  given,  would  have 
been  of  comparatively  slight  damage  to 
the  operator,  and  the  public,  as  compared! 
with  filling  the  mines  with  water,  for  the 
breaker  could  have  been  restorod  in  from 


three  to  five  months,  but  the  community 
would  have  been  shocked  at  that. 


ARGUMENT  OE 

H.  C.  REYNOLDS,  ESQ. 

Fuel  is  the  foundation  upon  which  is 
erected  the  superstructure  of  prosperity, 
it  enters  into  the  first  place  of  importance 
to  the  successful  preservation  of  manu- 
facture. Any  increase  in  the  price  im- 
mediately raises  the  level  of  price  of 
manufactured  articles,  as  certainly  as  a 
stone  cast  into  a pool  raises  the  level  of 
the  water  therein. 

When  the  cost  of  production  in  Ameri- 
co  shall  have  advanced  to  a point  whei  e 
the  foreign  manufacturers  enter  our  mar- 
kets with  profits,  then  will  the  busy 
hum  of  our  industries  cease,  and  id  e 
men  again  will  crowd  and  compete  for 
the  few  places  left. 

The  demand  in  1901  for  fuel  was  stimu- 
lated, and  for  the  first  time  in  the  an- 
thracite trade,  the  market  was  such 
that  our  employes  were  given  the  oppor- 
tunity to  work  full  time. 

The  advance  demanded  was  not  Justi- 
fied by  conditions,  for  the  wages  paid 
were  sufficient  in  amount  for  the  ser- 
vices rendered,  and  if  the  contract  miners 
who  is  the  architect  of  his  own  future, 
had  followed  the  path  of  a reasonable 
ambition,  the  result  must  have  been  the 
most  satisfactory  in  the  history  of  coal 
production. 

It  must  have  been  long  since  apparent 
to  this  commission  that  instead  of  grati- 
fying his  opportunity  for  large  earnings, 
and  industriously  endeavoring  to  profit 
thereby,  the  miner  has  wilfully  refused 
to  produce  a fair  output  of  coal. 

He  has,  by  direction  of  the  union,  de- 
liberately, in  the  face  of  a great  demand 
for  coal,  refused  to  profit  by  their  con- 
ditions, and  then  came  here  and  de- 
manded an  advance,  to  grant  which 
would  place  a premium  on  idleness.  He 
has  actually  earned  since  the  advance  of 
1900  less  than  before,  because  he  worked 
less.  If  an  advance  is  given  by  this 
commission  to  this  class  of  our  employes, 
they  will  simply  work  so  much  less  time. 
The  few  miners  who  have  profited  by 
the  advance  have,  in  every  instance,  been 
those  who  have  disregarded  union  rules 
and  have  insisted  upon  profiting  by  the 
opportunity;  and  these  have  been 
stamped  by  the  union  miner  as  "unfair'' 
and  enemies  to  organized  labor. 

The  evidence  is  conclusive  that  the 
miners  work  not  to  exceed  six  hours.  We 
contend  that  there  is  no  reason  why  ho 
should  not  work  for  a reasonable  period 
and  with  reasonable  intensity.  His  ef- 
forts redound  to  him  over  advantage  and 
enable  us  to  disperse  with  a considerable 
number  of  miners  with  the  result  acord- 
ing  to  the  evidence  of  one  of  their  num- 
ber, of  increasing  the  earnings  of  the  re- 
mainder, 40  per  cent. 

During  the  period  since  the  strike  of 
1900  this  class  of  employes  seem  to  have 
felt  that  preparation  for  the  demands  of 
the  union  required  them  to  effect  a de- 
crease of  earnings  in  some  way  in  order 
to  make  more  plausible  the  clamor  for 
an  advance  in  wages.  The  eight-hour 
day  means  an  increase  of  25  per  cent,  in 
wage  cost  of  production. 

. A reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor  by  a 
decision  of  this  tribunal  will  not  only 
impose  upon  the  consumer  of  anthracite 
coal  additional  burdens  directly,  but  it 
will  imediately  give  countenance  to  like 
demands  in  every  branch  of  manufacture. 


The  result  will  be  that  there  will  be  a 
precedent  established  so  far  reaching  that 
there  will  be  an  almost  revolutionary 
economic  condition  which  cannot  fail  to 
react  unfavorably  upon  the  best  interests 
of  the  workman,  employer  and  consumer. 

No  professional  man  of  great  attain- 
ments today  could  accomplish  his  high 
ambition,  or  contribute  that  means  of 
his  powers  essential  to  successful  accom- 
plishments were  he  to  regard  the  measure 
of  his  obligations  upon  the  standard  of 
an  eight-hour  day. 

Early  in  August  the  union  realized  that 
it  was  steadily  losing  ground.  The  pro- 
duction of  coal  was  increasing  every  day. 
More  and  more  men  were  seeking  employ 
ment.  Desperation  succeeded  confidence, 
something  must  be  done.  The  coal  output 
during  the  period  of  this  strike  grew 
larger  and  larger  as  the  months  passed. 
The  desperation  of  the  officials  of  this 
organization  became  keener  as  the  coal 
output  steadily  increased.  That  the  re- 
straint and  peaceful  persuasion  might 
be  efficacious  it  was  thought  that  the 
mild  coercion  of  the  dynamite  bomb  upon 
the  homes  of  those  workmen  desirous  of 
resuming  would  be  justifiable  It  was  a 
mild  and  harmless  weapon,  because  in 
the  language  of  Mr.  Mitchell:  "A  miner 

knows  how  to  use  explosives  too  well  to 
explode  dynamite  without  injuring  peo 
pie,  if  he  wanted  to  injure  them,  and  it 
is  rather  peculiar  that  in  all  the  explo- 
sions of  dynambite  that  took  place,  no 
building  was  destroved  and  no  person  was 
seriously  hurt.  The  miners  if  they  want- 
ed to  destroy'  by  dynamite  would  do  bet- 
ter than  that.” 

The  mere  suggestion  that  this  union 
incorporate  is  the  signal  for  a lengthy 
opinion,  in  yvhich  all  are  condemned  as 
meddlers,  impudent,  impertinent  and  in- 
sulting to  the  last  degree.  Had  this 
union  regarded  its  contract  with  the 
Black  Diamond  Coal  company,  had  it 
made  good,  or  offered  to  make  good, 
the  strike  and  the  damages  caused 
thereby,  of  its  members  in  refusing  to 
work,  it  might  then  rejoice  in  the  sole 
opportunity  afforded  it  in  our  region  of 
proving  that  incorporation  is  not  requis- 
ite to  the  performance  of  its  agreemnt. 
Sooner  or  later,  these  must  incorporate. 
Already  in  the  states  of  Connecticut  and 
New  Jersey,  efforts  are  being  made  to 
compel  the  incorporation  of  labor  unions. 

The  purpose  of  this  union  seems  to  be 
universally  to  do  as  little  and  get  as  much 
as  possible.  This  principle  has  cost  in 
dustrial  England  her  supremacy',  and  ours 
is  destined  to  be  lost  in  the  same  way. 
Germany,  with  her  sixty-four  hours  per 
week  of  labor,  and  her  vast  productive 
organization  to  which  every  member  of 
the  family  furnishes  his  and  her  contri- 
bution is  forging  ahead  in  the  race  of  na- 
tions for  place  in  commerce  and  manu- 
facture. France,  too,  with  her  industri- 
ous and  frugal  artisans  always  and  eter- 
nally striving,  but  be  reckoned  with.  All 
the  gush  and  sickly  sentiment  which  finds 
expression  of  condemnation  of  child  la- 
bor does  not'  take  into  account  the  fact 
that  idleness  of  children  and  men  is  not 
safe  or  desirable.  The  supremacy  in  the 
world's  affairs  of  those  children  of  toil 
who  early  w'ere  obliged  to  be  useful,  is 
sufficient  answer  to  much  of  this  criti- 
cism. No  one  will  justify  the  unreason- 
able use  of  child  labor  at  early'  ages,  but 
there  is  a middle  and  conservative  ground 
upon  which  all  reasonable  persons  may 
unite. 


mine  s 'trike  Commission 


281 


Proceedings  of  Thursday,  Peb.  12. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Feb.  13.J 


Philadelphia,  Feb.  12. — In  an  address 
of  two  hours  and  twenty  minutes’  dur- 
ation, presenting  the  case  of  the  oper- 
ators before  the  mine  strike  commis- 
sion, at  this  morning’s  session,  George 
F.  Baer,  president  of  the  Philadelphia 
and  Reading  company,  and  the  head  of 
the  operators’  “round-table”  during  the 
strike,  proved  himself  to  be  no  less  an 
orator  than  he  is  a great  man  of  af- 
fairs. 

It  was  a most  thorough,  straightfor- 
ward, logical  and  impressive  argument, 
and,  more  than  all,  it  was  earnest.  He 
spoke  like  a man  advocating  a life  and 
death  cause.  It  was  not  by  any  means 
a reading  of  a brief  by  one  of  high  posi- 
tion, brought  in  to  give  the  utterances 
weight.  Mr.  Baer’s  every  word  and 
gesture  bore  testimony  of  a profound 
realization  of  the  momentous  character 
of  his  task,  and  that  he  was  speaking 
from  conviction. 

There  was  the  largest  attendance 
since  the  commission  came  to  Philadel- 
phia, and  not  infrequently  the  assem- 
blage broke  forth  in  loud  applause. 
There  was  considerable  laughter,  too, 
especially  when  Mr.  Baer’s  remarkably 
keen  sarcasm  was  let  loose  on  Henry 
Demorest  Lloyd,  who  had  referred  to 
him  as  an  “ante-diluvian  captain  of  in- 
dustry.” 

Most  of  his  address  was  read  from 
manuscript,  but  some  of  his  best  utter- 
ances were  those  that  came  extempore. 

Proposition  to  Regulate  Wages. 

The  most  important  feature  of  his  ad- 
dress, from  a practical  standpoint,  came 
at  the  close,  when  he  submitted  to  the 
commission  a proposition  for  the  regu- 
lation of  wages  for  the  next  three  years. 
It  was,  in  substance,  a five  per  cent,  ad- 
vance at  once,  and  a sliding  scale  ar- 
rangement thereafter. 

Not  the  least  interesting  part  of  the 
address  was  the  recital  of  the  history  of 
the  conferences  preceding  the  strike.  It 
was  the  first  time  the  whole  story  was 
told,  and  it  was  intently  listened  to.  In 
the  course  of  the  recital,  Mr.  Darrow 
asked  if  Mr.  Baer  would  be  willing  to 
have  President  Mitchell  treat  with  him 
as  the  representatives  of  the  miners. 
Mr.  Baer  replied  that  if  Mr.  Mitchell 
came  as  the  accredited  representative 
of  the  Reading  employes,  to  deal  with 
no  interests  outside  of  the  Reading 
company,  he  would  be  acceptable,  but  if 
he  came  as  the  representative  of  all 
classes  of  miners,  anthracite  and  bitu- 
minous, he  would  not  be  acceptable. 

When  Mr.  Baer  concluded,  there  was 
a burst  of  applause,  which  continued 
for  nearly  a minute,  and  for  a consider- 
able period  he  was  the  recipient  of  con- 
gratulations from  his  auditors.  One  of 
the  first  to  shake  his  hand  was  Presi- 
dent Mitchell,  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, who  came  in  from  Indianapolis 
about  twenty  minutes  before  Mr.  Baer 
got  through  with  his  speech. 


Mr.  Mitchell’s  entrance  was  the  sig- 
nal for  a general  craning  of  necks. 
Even  the  commissioners  neglected  Mr. 
Baer’s  address  for  a moment  to  point 
out  Mr.  Mitchell  to  their  guests,  who 
occupied  seats  in  the  rear  of  the  bench. 

Darrow  Begins  His  Address. 

Mr.  Baer  was  preceded  by  ex-Senator 
Wolverton  for  about  twenty  minutes, 
required  to  conclude  the  address  he  had 
not  finished  at  adjourning  time  yester- 
day. Following  Mr.  Baer  came  Clar- 
ence S.  Darrow,  chief  counsel  for  the 
miners,  who  took  up  all  of  the  after- 
noon session  with  the  opening  of  his 
summing-  up  for  the  miners.  Mr.  Dar- 
row spoke  in  a strenuous,  aggressive 
style,  relieved  occasionally  with  witty 
passages,  which  were  always  provoca- 
tive of  laughter.  At  the  outset  he  was 
interrupted  frequently  by  applause.  He 
asked  Chairman  Gray  to  request  that 
no  applause  be  indulged  in,  as  it  tended 
to  disconcert  him,  and  the  chairman 
conveyed  the  request  to  the  auditors. 
The  applause  was  given  over  until  Mr. 
Darrow  finished  for  the  day,  when  it 
burst  forth  in  a mighty  wave.  Mr.  Dar- 
row will  likely  occupy  all  of  today.  He 
is  speaking  without  manuscript. 


THE  FULL  TEXT  OF 

MR.  BAER’S  ADDRESS 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Commission:  Whatever  can  be  well  said, 

I think  has  been  said  in  the  arguments 
of  the  distinguished  counsel  who  have 
represented  the  operators  through  th'a 
long  hearing  and  who  have  so  ably  dis- 
charged their  duty  to  them.  My  breth- 
ren of  the  bar  persist  in  disregarding  my 
new  vocation  and,  while  treating  me  as 
one  of  their  guild,  they  have,  contrary 
to  my  own  inclinations,  persisted  in  ask- 
ing me  to  join  them  in  making  an  argu- 
ment in  this  case.  After  all,  I can  only 
be  a gleaner  in  the  field  which  has  been 
already  widely  covered,  in  the  hope  that 
in  the  few  straws  that  remain  I may  find 
a grain  or  two  of  wheat. 

I think  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the 
marvelous  progress  of  the  past  centuiy 
is  due  to  the  general  acceptance  of  ti  e 
theory  that  under  the  action  of  indi- 
vidual liberty  maximum  efficiency  and 
justice  have  been  secured. 

Political  and  industrial  freedom  have 
marched  side  by  side.  The  individual  was 
given  free  scope  within  the  sound  rules 
of  law  to  exercise  all  the  powers  he  pos- 
sessed to  improve  his  condition  and  ad- 
vance himself  in  life.  He  is  a pessimist 
who  will  not  say  that  the  masses  of  men 
have  advanced  and  are  continuing  to  ad- 
vance under  the  powerful  stimulus  which 
individual  liberty  gives  to  individual  in- 
itiative. 

You  may  marshal  before  you  any  bat- 
talion of  successful  men,  mobilized  at 
random  in  any  locality,  and  to  the  sum- 
mons, “How  did  you  attain  your  present 
position?”  the  answer  will  come,  in  nire 
cases  out  of  ten:  “Promoted  from  the 
ranks.”  But  we  are  told  that  whilst  this 
may  have  been  true  as  to  the  past,  new 


condition  and  forces  have  been  develo  rd 
which  require  new  lords  and  new  laws. 

Combination  Necessary. 

In  the  development  of  the  natural  re- 
sources of  the  earth,  it  is  necessary  for 
men  to  combine  both  their  capital  and 
their  energy.  Railroad  and  steamship 
lines,  great  steel  plants  and  workshops  of 
every  kind  can  only  be  created  by  a com- 
bination of  capital  and  energy.  Throu:  h 
an  adaptation  and  enlargement  of  Roman 
laws,  we  have  developed  the  modem 
business  corporation.  We  are  apt  to  over- 
look the  part  these  business  corporations 
play  in  the  distribution  of  wealth.  Their 
stockholders  are  many,  scattered  far  ai  d 
wide,  and  the  business  is  not  owned,  as 
mans'  people  suppose,  by  a few  very  ric  h 
men.  The  profits  made  in  any  large  busi- 
ness carried  on  by  a firm  consisting  < f 
one  family,  or  a very  few  persons,  are 
distributed  among  these  fewr;  but  a su- - 
cessful  business  carried  on  in  corporate 
form  distributes  its  profits  among  the 
many,  and  therefore  necessarily  tends  to 
a greater  distribution  of  wealth. 

I think  there  is,  from  lack  of  thought, 
much  confusion  in  the  minds  of  many 
people  as  to  the  rights,  powers  and  du- 
ties which  properly  belong  to  industrial 
organizations,  including  both  capital  and 
labor  organizations.  In  general,  no  one 
denies  the  right  of  man  to  organize  for 
any  lawful  purpose;  but  the  right  to  or- 
ganize, and  the  power  of  the  organiza- 
tion, when  organized,  must  still  be  gov- 
erned and  controlled  by  the  general  law 
of  the  land  under  which  our  individual 
and  property  rights  are  protected. 

Must  Obey  the  Law. 

We  constantly  hear  the  phrase:  "Capi- 
tal organizes.  Why  may  not  labor  organ- 
ize?” As  if  this  settled  the  problem.  But 
capital  can  not  organize  for  an  illegal 
purpose.  Organized  capital  is  subjected  to 
sharper  scrutiny  than  any  other  kind  of 
organization,  as  possible  violation  of  in- 
dividual rights  is  at  once  seized  upon  by 
the  public  as  requiring  some  new  and 
drastic  law,  if  existing  laws  are  not  suf- 
ficient to  meet  public  expectations.  F r 
example,  may  capital  organize  in  such  a 
way  that  one  manufacturer  may  employ 
pickets  to  surround  the  establishments  of 
another  competing  manufacturer  to  pre- 
vent ingress  and  egress  to  the  works,  or 
Interfere  with  the  sale  of  its  commodities 
by  intercepting  its  customers  or  inter- 
fere with  the  transportation  of  its  pro- 
ducts and  the  orderly  conduct  of  the  rival 
business?  We  concede  to  organized  labor 
the  same  rights  that  we  claim  for  organ- 
ized capital.  Each  must  keep  within  the 
law.  There  can  not  be  one  law  for  citi- 
zens and  corporations  and  another  law 
for  labor  organizations. 

Strike  Lawlessness. 

I have  been  criticized  because,  in  an 
interview  with  the  president  of  the 
United  States,  I charged  the  lawlessness 
in  the  anthracite  regions  to  the  mine 
workers'  organization,  and  I shall,  with 
your  permission,  proceed  to  give  the  rea- 
sons why  I did  so. 

The  lawlessness  in  the  coal  regions  was 
the  direct  result  of  mistaken  theories  i f 
the  rights  of  the  Mine  Workers.  It  will 
not  do  to  say  that  the  leaders  have  not 
encouraged  violence  and  crime.  It  is 


232 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


true,  no  doubt,  that  they  did  not  directly 
advise  it.  They,  at  times,  counselled 
against  it,  and  issued  paper  proclama- 
tion calling  for  peace;  and  at  other  times, 
as  they  did  on  the  witness  stand,  they 
have  expressed  regrets  for  it.  Neverthe- 
less, they  are  legally  and  morally  re- 
sponsible for  the  situation  they  created, 
and  from  which  this  violence  and  crime 
resulted. 

Here  is  the  record.  Resolution  No.  35, 
of  the  Shamokin  convention,  approves 
the  action  of  District  No.  1,  which  de- 
cided to  insist  upon  forcing  all  who  work 
in  and  around  the  mines  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  union,  and  that  they  be  au- 
thorized to  refuse  to  work  with  non- 
union men.  Regularly  moved  and  sec- 
onded “That  it  becomes  compulsory  on 
the  part  of  any  man  employed  in  and 
around  the  mines  to  become  a member  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America.” 

Resolution  No.  9,  at  the  Shamokin  con- 
vention: “Resolved,  That  at  any  colliery 

where  employes  refuse  to  become  mem- 
bers of  our  organization  and  wear  the 
working  button,  the  local  governing  such 
colliery,  after  using  all  persuasive  meas- 
ures to  get  such  employes  to  join,  'and, 
failing  in  such,  shall  have  full  power  to 
suspend  operations  at  such  colliery  until 
such  employes  become  members  of  our 
organization.”  The  power  to  quit  work 
when  persuasion  ceases;  the  power  by 
force,  by  any  means  within  their  power, 
to  suspend  the  operation  of  a colliery. 
That  means  to  prevent  anybody  from 
working  there. 

These  are  but  the  samples  of  the  gen- 
eral doctrines  that  they  have  proclaimed 
in  their  organized  meetings.  Then  comes 
the  president  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers. and  in  his  testimony  he  declares 
that  the  man  who  works  during  a strike 
is  a scab.  He  is  a Benedict  Arnold  He 
would  ostracise  such  a man.  A man  has 
no  moral  right  to  pursue  a lawful  occu- 
pation in  a lawful  manner,  if  his  work 
destroys  the  hopes  and  aspirations  of  his 
fellow-man.  These  are  extracts  from  Mr. 
Mitchell’s  testimony. 

Then  again,  the  leaders  denounced  the 
police  employed  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
defending  life  and  property.  I know  it  is 
a humiliating  thing  that  in  the  great, 
rich  state  of  Pennsylvania,  law  and  or- 
der are  so  lightly  regarded  that  the 
owners  of  manufactories  of  all  kinds,  and 
collieries,  must,  at  their  own  expense, 
guard  their  properties,  and  that  they  are 
denied  the  reasonable  protection  for 
which  taxation  is  levied. 

Labor  and  the  Militia. 

They  complain  bitterly  of  the  decisions 
of  the  legally  constituted  courts,  whereby 
riotous  conduct,  unlawful  destruction  of 
property  and  interference  with  legal 
rights  of  citizens  are  simply  restrained. 
They  even  demand  of  their  political  sup- 
porters now  the  passage  of  laws  which 
will  place  trades  unions  above  and  be- 
yond the  customary  and  ordinary  juris- 
diction of  the  courts.  They  blindly  re- 
fuse to  see  that  the  peace  and  prosperity 
of  the  community  and  the  rights  of  the 
citizen  can  be  maintained  only  through 
the  supremacy  of  the  law  and  its  just 
and  equal  administration  The  overthrow 
of  the  civil  power,  whereby  whole  com- 
munities are  at  the  mercy  of  the  mob, 
so  delights  them  that  they  cry  out  lustily 
against  the  soldiers  who  are  sent  there  to 
protect  life  and  property.  It  is  in  evi- 
dence that  they  complained  to  the  gov- 
ernor that  American  citizens,  on  their 
way  to  work,  were  guarded  by  soldiers; 
and  the  governor  of  this  great  common- 


wealth, in  tender  regard  for  their  feel- 
ings, orders  the  commanding  general  to 
report  and  practically  to  apologize  for 
guarding  workmen  from  the  fury  of  the 
riots  that  this  organization  incites.  Why 
this  denunciation  of  courts,  of  police  ar.d 
of  soldiers,  if  the  measures  to  support 
a strike  are  to  be  only  peaceable  and  per- 
suasive? The  law  is  only  a terror  to  evil- 
doers. In  the  exercise  of  lawful  acts  we 
need  fear  neither  courts,  police  nor  sol- 
diers. 

Natural  Results. 

With  such  official  teachings,  let  us  look 
at  the  natural  results  which  must  flow 
from  them,  which  did  flow  from  them. 
We  have  been  told,  time  and  again,  how 
boys  to  the  number  of  over  twenty  or 
thirty  thousand  in  the  coal  regions  hate 
been  admitted  to  membership  in  this  or- 
ganization, how  foreigners,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  fact  as  to  whether  they  aie 
or  are  not  American  citizens,  foreigners 
of  many  nationalities  and  speaking  di- 
verse tongues,  with  the  boys,  compose  a 
majority  of  this  organization.  These 
boys,  like  most  boys,  have  not  been  dis- 
ciplined to  reverence  law  and  order,  and 
we  do  not  expect  boys  to  behave  very 
well  unless  they  are  under  strong  re- 
straint. The  foreigners,  many  of  them, 
have  been  governed  in  their  old  homes 
by  stringent  police  regulation.  The  law, 
in  the  presence  of  the  gendarme,  con- 
fronted them  everywhere.  They  have 
come  to  this  country  with  confused  ideas 
of  what  free  government  means.  The  dis- 
tinction between  liberty  regulated  by 
law,  and  license,  is  practically  unknow  n 
to  them.  Therefore,  when  a powerful  or- 
ganization, of  which  they  are  members, 
led  by  men  who  are  upheld  and  encour- 
aged in  a respectable  community,  tel's 
them  that  force  may  be  used  to  compel 
men  to  join  their  union,  that  scabs 
should  be  ostracised,  that  they  are  given 
power  to  suspend  operations  at  a col- 
liery where  the  employes  do  not  join  the 
union,  is  it  not  a direct  invitation — nay, 
more — a command  to  commit  the  v o- 
lence  and  crime  that  characterized  the 
reign  of  terror  in  the  mining  regions? 

Inciting  to  Riot. 

Men  who  teach  these  false  doctrines, 
pose  as  they  may,  are  inciting  to  riot. 
Every  day  they  saw  the  results  of  their 
work  in  outrages  against  persons  and 
property.  They  made  no  reasonable  effort 
to  restrain  the  violence.  They  even  ease 
their  conscience  with  the  fallacy  that  un- 
til a man  is  convicted  in  the  courts  be  s 
guilty  of  no  crime,  and  therefore  they 
can  shut  their  eyes  to  what  is  going  on 
around  them. 

The  legal  responsibility  they  inci  r 
gives  them  little  concern.  They  assume 
that  juries  selected  from  among  their 
own  members  or  sympathizers  will  not 
find  them  guilty.  They  will  not  become 
incorporated  for  fear  of  civil  suits  te- 
sulting  in  heavy  damages.  Still,  the 
moral  and  legal  responsibility  exists,  even 
though  there  is  at  times  no  adequate 
remedy  for  its  enforcement. 

Of  course  I am  not  unmindful  here  that 
witnesses  were  produced  to  show  that 
there  was  no  real  violence  in  the  coal  re- 
gions; and  in  reading  over  the  testimony, 
which  I did  thoroughly  each  day,  I 
found  that  even  priests  had  come  to  bear 
testimony  to  the  peace  and  quiet  that 
reigned  throughout  the  anthracite  re- 
gions. I recall  that  between  Jericho  and 
Jerusalem  a man  lay  in  agony,  brutally 
treated,  and  that  even  there,  it  is  said, 
the  priest  and  the  Levite  passed  by  on 


the  other  side.  History,  in  our  day, 
seems  to  repeat  itself. 

The  Pump  Order. 

Now,  take  the  pump  order.  The  leaders 
attempted  to  enforce  their  demands  by  a 
threatened  destruction  of  the  mines.  They 
knew  that  if  the  pumping  ceased  the 
mines  would  be  destroyed.  They  thought 
the  operators  would  yield  rather  than  see 
the  ruin  of  the  mines.  The  operators  did 
not  yield.  Every  attempt  to  supply  men 
to  work  the  pumps  was  met  by  mobs,  ty 
pickets,  and  all  the  devices  of  labor  o-- 
ganizations  used  to  prevent  men  fr<  m 
working.  The  mines  had  to  be  guarded 
by  armed  police.  The  energy  of  the 
operators  was  taxed  to  its  utmost  to  ob- 
tain workmen  from  all  over  the  United 
States  to  prevent  the  destruction  of  tl  e 
mines.  Bad  as  is  the  reputation  of  Chi- 
cago, I really  think  we  found  a few 
men  in  Chicago  willing  to  come  here  and 
help  preserve  the  mines.  (Laughter). 

They  say,  in  excuse  of  this  monstrous 
conduct,  that  they  committed  no  wrong, 
because  we  could  have  saved  our  proper- 
ty by  acceding  to  their  demands  for 
eight  hours.'  When  they  gave  this  an- 
swer, the  fact  was  already  clearly  proven 
that  at  mines  where  men  had  been  work- 
ing on  the  eight-hour  shift  they  were  not 
permitted  to  wrork. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Not  one  case,  Mr.  Baer. 

Mr.  Baer:  I will  not  stop  to  dispute 
what  is  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Darrow:  There  is  not  one  case. 

Mr.  Baer:  But  I say  it  is  in  the  record 
and  the  excuse  that  was  given  was  that 
they  would  have  to  work  with  “scab  ’ 
workmen. 

Mr.  Darrow:  “Scab"  steam  men. 

Mr.  Baer:  Well,  I do  not  care  whether 
he  is  a steam  man  or  anything  else.  I 
say  that  the  records  shows  a number  of 
cases  where  men  had  been  working  on 
eight-hour  shifts,  and  they  were  not  per- 
mitted to  work:  that  they  were  advised 
to  quit  work,  and  they  did  quit  work,  be- 
cause it  involved  an  association  with 
what  they  call  “scab”  labor. 

Mr.  Darrow:  But  it  was  in  manning 
the  pumps  only. 

Mr.  Baer:  In  manning  the  pumps? 

There  is  no  division  between  engineering 
and  pumping  and  firing,  in  that  respect. 
The  men  work  together  as  a unit.  If  ycu 
cannot  raise  the  steam,  you  do  not  need 
engineers,  and  if  you  do  not  have  eng  - 
neers  and  steam  you  do  not  require 
pumps  or  pump  men. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  just  what  our  men 
claimed  recently. 

Mr.  Baer:  Now,  can  anyone  be  de- 
ceived for  a moment  by  such  a weak  at- 
tempt at  justification?  It  has  been  sug- 
gested here  (and  the  figure  is  so  apt  that 
I repeat  it)  that  if  a highwayman  meets 
me  on  the  road  and  demands  my  purse, 
and  I refuse  to  give  it  to  him,  and  he 
shoots  me  down,  he  is  not  guilty  of  mur- 
der; because,  forsooth,  had  I given  him 
the  purse  he  would  have  been  content 
and  gone  on  his  way! 

No  more  wicked  act  was  ever  perpe- 
trated by  bold  men  than  the  issuing  of 
the  pump  order.  If  we  had  not  been  able 
to  protect  most  of  otlr  collieries,  the  in- 
jury to  the  public  would  have  been  un- 
paralleled. 

Mines  Drowned  Out. 

With  the  cessation  of  mining  for  five 
months,  and  the  destruction  for  the  time 
being  of  a number  of  collieries,  the  pub- 
lic is  now'  suffering,  or  was  until  with  n 
a week,  for  wrant  of  an  adequate  supply 
of  fuel.  Think  what  the  results  would 


have  been  had  the  efforts  of  the  Mine 
Workers’  union  to  drown  out  all  our  col- 
lieries been  successful!  Five  of  our  col- 
lieries  are  still  drowned  out.  Our  pro- 
duction. as  shown  in  January,  is  140, 0C0 
tons  short.  We  are  only  a little  ahead 
of  the  larger  companies  in  the  upper  re- 
gion, because  they  have  not  lost  many 
of  their  mines;  and  whilst  they  have 
been  able,  during  the  last  few  months,  to 
increase  their  production,  the  product  of 
the  companies  I represent — the  Philadel- 
phia and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  com- 
pany, with  five  collieries  still  drowned 
out  through  the  wickedness  of  this  pump 
order,  and  with  the  Stanton  colliery  of 
the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre  stiil 
drowned  out,  although  we  are  making  an 
effort,  day  and  night,  to.  remove  the 
water — has  been  reduced.  Two  or  three 
thousand  men,  their  own  men,  many  of 
them  United  Mine  Woixers,  have  been 
deprived  of  work;  and  they  have  even 
complained  that  we  have  not  carried  out 
honestly  our  offer  to  employ  all  the  men, 
when  through  their  folly  and  their  wick- 
edness they  destroyed  the  means  which 
we  had  for  giving  them  employment. 

Words  may  obscure  the  evil  of  almost 
any  plea,  however  tainted  and  corrupt. 
The  ingenuity  of  man  cannot  invent  a 
plausible  excuse  for  this  order,  other  than 
the  wantonness  of  power. 

Herbert  Spencer,  in  his  last  book,  says: 
“Those  who,  joining  a trade  union,  sur- 
render their  freedom  to  make  engage- 
ments on  their  own  terms  and  allow 
themselves  to  be  told  by  their  leade  s 
when  to  work  and  when  not  to  work, 
have  no  adequate  sense  of  that  funda- 
mental right  which  every  man  possesses 
to  make  the  best  of  himself,  and  to  dis- 
pose of  his  .abilities  in  any  way  he 
pleases.”  I wonder  what  Herbert  Spen- 
cer would  say  to  Mr.  Mitchell’s  and  Mr. 
Gomper’s  n^ew  limitation  of  human  free- 
dom. Here  it  is;  “A  man  who  works 
during  a strike  has  no  moral  right  to 
work,  if  his  work  destroys  the  hope  and 
aspirations  of  his  fellow  men.” 

A New  Principle. 

This  is,  in  substance,  the  new  principle 
announced  by  Messrs.  Mitchell  and  Gom- 
pers.  You  observe  that  they  both— Mr. 
Mitchell  having  read  law  for  six  months — 
evade  the  legal  aspect.  They  do  not  un- 
dertake to  say  that  under  the  present 
organization  of  society  and  under  the 
constitution  and  law  as  they  now  exist 
a man  has  no  legal  right  to  work;  but 
they  insist  upon  an  undefined  law  of  their 
own,  a higher  law,  which  is  based  upon 
that  intangible  thing  called  a moral  right 
in  contradistinction  from  a legal  right. 

I had  supposed  that  in  this  Christian  era 
the  laws  were  formed  to  protect  the 
moral  as  well  as  the  legal  rights  of  men; 
that  they  were  based  upon  the  common 
morality  embodied  in  the  Ten  Command- 
ments and  the  teachings  of  Christ.  I did 
not  know  that  there  was  reserved  to  in- 
dividuals a moral  right  to  do  a thing 
which  the  law  prohibited.  I do  not  know 
where  to  draw  the  line  between  the  moral 
and  the  legal  rights  of  men  when  we  are 
called  to  pass  on  such  questions  as  are 
now  before  this  commission.  How  am  I 
to  determine  the  momentous  question  as 
to  whether  my  work  will  destroy  the 
hopes  and  aspirations  of  my  fellow  men  ! 
Is  it  to  be  done  by  some  town  meeting, 
or  by  some  crude  democracy  where  by  a 
majority  vote  my  rights  .and  privileges 
are  to  be  fixed?  Are  not  constitutions 
and  laws  framed  to  protect  the  weak 
against  the  strong  and  the  few  against 
the  tyranny  of  the  many?  If  a mob  in 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


convention  assembled  declares  that  only 
the  Protestant  religion  shall  prevail  in  a 
community,  am  I to  be  debarred  from  the 
right  of  going  to  the  Catholic  church  be- 
cause it  would  destroy  the  hopes  and  as- 
pirations of  the  Protestant  clergy,  all  of 
them  workers  worthy  of  all  honor? 

Socialism,  as  taught  by  some  of  its  most 
brilliant  exponents,  has  never,  in  its 
wildest  dreams,  undertaken  to  reorganize 
society  on  such  a basis.  There  is,  of 
course,  a mixture  of  socialism  and  an- 
archy which  fascinates  the  minds  of 
many  men  which  may  excuse  this,  or 
other  doctrines.  But  it  is  an  humiliation 
to  every  American  citizen  who  is  proud 
of  the  success  that  our  free  government 
has  attained  and  who  looks  hopefully  to 
the  future,  to  hear  men  who  are  mighty 
leaders  of  good  people  and  have  ears  of 
thousands  of  workmen  teach  such  civil 
and  religious  heresy. 

Public’s  Sympathy  with  Labor. 

We  have  been  found  fault  with  for  not 
making  an  agreement  with  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America.  It  is  only- 
just  to*  those  men  to  say  that  most  of 
them  have  no  knowledge  of  tlie  facts  and 
have  hakl  no  experience  in  business  and 
look  upon  the  subject  from  either  a sen- 
timental or  a theoretic  standpoint.  I shall 
always  expect  that  in  any  controversy 
between  capital  and  labor  what  we  call 
the  general  public  will  sympathize  with 
labor.  And  I find  no  fault  with  it.  It  is 
not  pleasant  and  it  is  not  convenient  to 
be  the  target  at  which  all  public  denun- 
ciation is  aimed,  but  nevertheless  it  is 
human  and  humane  to  sympathize  with 
the  weak  and  the  struggling.  And  bad 
as  the  tendency  is  at  times,  it  is  a thing 
which  in  the  end  corrects  itself  and  what- 
ever inconvenience  and  annoyance  may 
arise  from  it,  I really  think  that  it  is 
better  for  the  race  that  that  human  and 
humane  instinct,  crude  though  it  be. 
should  continue  to  be  one  or  the  best 
traits  of  human  nature.  I have,  there- 
fore, I repeat,  no  fault  to  find  with 
criticisms,  gentle  cr  harsh,  that  have 
been  made  upon  us,  because  it  is  nat- 
ural that  in  any  such  struggle  men  who 
are  not  interested  in  it  and  only  see  from 
afar  should  put  upon  what  they  call  the 
strong  all  the  blame. 

You  will  recall  that  the  demand  made 
upon  us  was  for  a uniform  scale  of 
wages  covering  the  whole  anthracite  field. 
That  was  the  first  and  only  written  de- 
mand. All  of  the  operators  were  asked 
to  meet  in  convention  with  a view  to 
adopting  a uniform  scale.  Now,  herein 
lies  one  of  the  difficulties  in  dealing  with 
subjects  of  this  kind.  I think  that  most 
labor  leaders  may  justly'  be  criticised  for 
striving  too  eagerly  for  uniformity  in 
wages  and  conditions.  Perhaps  this  is 
owing  to  the  fact  that  the  best  types  of 
labor  organizations  we  have  ii;  this  coun- 
try have  been  in  trades  where  the  work 
has  been  single  and  not  diverse.  Take  the 
locomotive  engineers.  There  practically 
the  same  skill  is  required  by  each  en- 
gineer. The  engineer  who  can  run  a 
locomotive  on  one  railroad  can  accom- 
modate himself  immediately  to  the  work 
of  running  a locomotive  on  another  road. 
The  service  is  practically  alike,  whether 
it  is  located  in  Pennsylvania  or  in  Cali- 
fornia. The  conditions  of  employment 
are  not  the  same  and  therefore  a uni- 
form scale  of  wages  applicable  to  the 
whole  United  States  would  not  be  just 
and  has  never  been  attempted,  so  far  as 
I know.  But  I think  that  the  best  type 
of  labor  organization  has  been  that  of 


233 


the  locomotive  engineer,  and  the  rea- 
sons for  it  are  plain.  You  must  remem- 
ber that  the  locomotive  engineers  rep- 
resent the  picked  men  of  the  United 
States.  There  is,  perhaps,  no  other  large 
body  of  men  selected  with  such  care  and 
where  the  conditions  of  service  are  so 
high.  The  engineer  must  be  a perfect 
man  physically'.  He  must  have  a good 
strong  body  and  clear  vision.  He  must 
have  the  nerve  and  coolness  of  a great 
commander,  because  he  is  ever  on  the 
danger  line.  His  habits  must  be  good. 
He  dare  not  use  intoxicating  liquors,  nor 
commit  any  of  the  vices  which  tend  to 
weaken  his  intellect  or  nerve,  or  de- 
stroy him  physically.  The  nature  of  his 
employment  requires  this  and  the  rail- 
roads of  the  country  exact  it.  They 
must  be  exacting  and  rigid  in  the  en- 
forcement of  all  these  requirements,  be- 
cause it  is  the  engineer  who  is  responsi- 
ble for  the  safety  of  the  thousands  of 
people  carried  at  great  speed  through  the 
country.  Indeed,  there  is  no  class  of 
workmen  who  so  thoroughly-  deserve  the 
sy'mpathy  and  the  respect  of  the  Amer- 
ican people. 

The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  con- 
ductors' organization.  There,  again,  t.ne 
duties  are  practically  the  same  and  the 
men  are  picked  men,  possessed  of  high 
character,  intelligence  and  integrity. 

Where  Uniformity  Is  Possible. 

I can  readily  see  how  some  measure  of 
uniformity  can  be  made  to  apply  to  is  - 
lated  cases  like  these.  But  they  are  iso- 
lated. It  is,  perhaps,  owing  to  the  nar- 
row experience  of  some  of  the  lab  r 
leaders  that  this  doctrine  of  uniformity 
is  so  strongly  insisted  upon.  Gompers,  ; s 
I understand  it,  was  a cigarmaker;  mak- 
ing aigars  is  a single  process  and  a sim- 
ple one.  So,  too,  printers,  by  reason  i f 
their  intelligence,  are  always  active  in 
proclaiming  this  doctrine  of  uniform 
wages.  Well,  their  own  vocation  involves 
a simple  and  a single  process.  But  when 
you  come  to  take  up  the  diversity-  of 
work  in  a great  manufacturing  industry, 
where  the  process  begins  with  the  raw 
material  and  proceeds  to  its  ultimate 
manufacture  into  the  most  complicaud 
delicate  machinery,  you  see  it  is  not  sin- 
gle any  longer.  It  requires  men  of  dif- 
ferent skill,  of  different  capacity,  physi- 
cal and  mental.  The  whole  theory  of  uni- 
formity becomes  impracticable.  In  ge  - 
eral,  diversity,  not  uniformity,  is  the  law. 
Diversity  is  the  complement  of  unity 
everywhere. 

It  would  be  idle  to  speculate  why  the 
Lord  did  not  make  the  earth  alike.  Why 
He  gave  us  mountains  and  plains,  ai  d 
seas  and  rivers,  and  forests  and  mines, 
and  why  He  should  give  us  some  p r- 
tions  of  it  to  be  burned  by  a tropical  st  n 
and  others  to  be  frozen  by  cold.  Why  He 
should  have  stored  the  fuel  deep  down  n 
the  bosom  of  the  earth  and  compelled 
men  to  bore  through  solid  adamant  to 
reach  the  hidden  treasure,  and  dig  it  n 
darkness  and  danger.  Why  He  shou  d 
have  made  men  of  different  races,  dif- 
ferent strength  and  different  capacity. 
But  this  is  the  way  He  did  create  the 
world,  and  it  is  in  this  world  we  live. 
We  can,  with  patience,  reconcile  ouselvis 
to  this  diversity  and  discover  in  it  seme 
wise  purpose. 

The  perplexing  question  why  one  man 
should  be  strong,  happy’  and  prosperous, 
and  another  weak,  afflicted  and  distressed 
may  be  answered  by  Seneca's  suggestion 
that  the  purpose  was  to  teach  the  power 
of  human  endurance  and  the  nobility  of 
a life  of  struggle. 


Proceedings  of  the  anthracite 


234 


Dissimilar  Elements. 

No  doubt  Mr.  Mitchell's  knowledge  cf 
bituminous  coal  conditions  and  his  abso- 
lutely confessed  ignorance  of  anthracite 
conditions  are  primarily  responsible  for 
the  attempt  to  join  the  two  in  one  or- 
ganization. If  any  fact  can  be  estab- 
lished by  testimony,  we  have  established 
the  radical  dissimilarity  between  bitum- 
inous and  anthracite  mining.  We  made 
every  effort  to  convince  Mr.  Mitchell  and 
his  friends  of  the  utter  impracticability 
of  his  scheme.  Our  chief  objection  to  his 
organization  was  that  it  was  a foreign 
organization,  interested  in  a rival  and 
competitive  business.  We  never  could  see 
the  wisdom  of  permitting  the  bituminous 
coal  miners  to  inject  themselves  into  the 
anthracite  situation.  It  has  proved  to  be 
just  as  mischievous  as  in  the  beginning 
we  believed  it  would  be. 

Powers  Not  Divisible. 

In  addition  to  the  fact  that  the  miners' 
union  was  controlled  by  a hostile  inter- 
est, we  objected  to  it  because  we  cannot 
delegate  to  the  miners’  union,  or  any 
other  labor  union,  the  right  to  determine 
who  shall  be  our  employes.  The  law  of 
Pennsylvania  and  the  charter  of  our  coal 
and  iron  company  in  express  terms  give 
to  the  president  and  directors  the  power 
of  appointing  all  officers,  agents  and  em- 
ployes as  they  may  deem  necessary.  We 
have  the  right,  under  the  law,  to  employ 
any  honest  man,  without  distinct  dis- 
crimination as  to  religion,  nationality,  cr 
membership  in  labor  organizations.  Th:'s 
is  a right  so  sacred  that,  come  what  will, 
it  will  never  be  surrendered. 

We  do  not  object  to  our  employes  join 
Ing  labor  organizations,  because  some  of 
our  employes  belong  to  it.  Our  emrrtoyes, 
union  and  non-union,  must  respect  our 
discipline.  It  is  peculiarly  necessary  in 
mining  operations,  to  prevent  accidents. 
We  must  be  left  free  to  employ  and  dis- 
charge men  as  we  please.  If  any  of  our 
officers  abuse  this  privilege,  then  it  is  our 
duty  to  hear  the  case  and  review  the  ac- 
tion, so  that  substantial  justice  may  be 
reached.  But  we  do  not  admit  the  right 
of  an  organization,  the  moment  we  exer- 
cise the  power  of  discipline,  to  coerce 
us,  before  inquiry,  by  strike  or  interfer- 
ence with  our  management.  The  em- 
ployer ought,  I think,  to  meet  his  em- 
ployes personally,  or  a representative  of 
such  employes,  provided  such  represen- 
tative acts  only  for  the  particular  em- 
ployes and  does  not  act  in  the  interests 
of  persons  who  are  not  employes  of  the 
particular  colliery.  To  illustrate.  In  a 
controversy  as  to  conditions  existing  at 
one  colliery,  the  employes  of  that  co'- 
liery  must  limit  their  demands  to  the 
particular  conditions  affecting  that  col- 
liery, and  if  they  see  fit  to  be  repre- 
sented by  some  one  acting  as  their  attor- 
ney, we  do  not  care  what  name  they 
give  him,  he  may  be  president,  or  a vice 
president,  or  anything  else,  he  must  be 
limited  in  the  same  way;  he  must  not  in- 
ject the  theory  as  to  what  would  be  fa'r 
towards  employes  of  another  company  a 
hundred' or  a thousand  miles  away. 

Mr.  Harrow:  You  mean  he  must  work 
for  the  company? 

Mr.  Baer;  No,  I say  I do  not  care  who 

he  is. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Have  you  not  changi  d 

your  position  on  that? 

Mr.  Baer:  I have  not.  T would  net 
hesitate  to  change  it  if  I found  I was 
wrong. 

It  Is  on  this  account  that  we  have  ob- 
jected to  Mr.  Mitchell's  Interference  in 


our  business.  If  he  simply  represented 
our  own  employes  and  was  acting 
exclusively  for  them,  there  could  be  no 
objection  to  dealing  with  him.  But  he 
represents  an  organization  having  for  its 
object  some  Utopian  scheme  of  uniform- 
ity in  wages  and  conditions  in  the  min- 
ing of  coal  all  over  the  United  Stat' s. 
And  instead,  therefore,  of  considering 
only  the  questions  at  issue  between  our 
employes  and  ourselves,-  he  is  consider- 
ing a general  proposition  which  relates 
to  all  the  coal  miners  dwelling  under  the 
sun. 

Restriction  of  Output. 

The  fact  that  the  miners’  organization 
does  restrict  the  quantity  of  coal  a man 
may  mine  is  clearly  proven.  It  is  not 
only  proven,  but  it  is  defended  as  a 
right.  Restriction  on  production,  limit- 
ing the  quantity  a man  may  produce, 
seems  to  be  based  on  the  theory  that  this 
is  essential  to  give  employment  to  the 
many.  The  illustration  given  by  one  tf 
the  miners'  attorney  was  this,  that  if 
there  is  only  a loaf  to  divide,  you  must 
divide  it  equally  and  give  no  one  man 
more  than  his  just  proportion.  The  illus- 
tiation  is  fallacious  in  this,  that  it  is  nor. 
germane  to  the  subject.  Labor  is  not  a 
division  of  an  existing  thing.  It  is  a 
power  which  produces  things.  Labor  is 
not  the  loaf,  but  that  by  which,  in  var- 
ious forms,  the  loaf  is  produced.  Any  re- 
striction, therefore,  on  labor,  must  neces- 
sarily reduce  the  number  of  loaves  which 
are  essential  to  feed  the  hungry.  To 
limit  the  right  of  exertion,  of  work,  is  to 
limit  production.  It  is  not  only  a wrong 
done  to  the  individual,  but  it  is  a viola- 
tion of  sound  economic  principles,  and 
therefore  an  injury  to  society.  The  ulti- 
mate effect  of  restricting  production,  so 
as  to  divide  employment  and  increase 
wages,  must  be  to  keep  or.  dividing  the 
wage  fund  as  often  as  new  men  seek 
employment.  There  must  be  a limit  to 
an  increase  of  wages,  but  there  can  be 
ro  limit  to  the  increase  of  workmen.  Ti  e 
process  must  inevitably  lead  to  the  de- 
struction of  the  industry  or  the  reduction 
of  the  wages  of  every  man  to  a sum 
barely  sufficient  to  sustain  life.  Wages 
can  only  increase  when  each  individual 
is  left  free  to  exert  himself  to  his  fullest 
capacity,  thereby  creating  wealth  which, 
in  turn,  gives  new'  employment— creates 
demand  for  commodities  and  demand  for 
workmen  to  produce  them.  Only  in  this 
way  can  the  wage  fund  be  increased. 

The  Question  of  Monopoly. 

The  country  is  agitated  over  the  possi- 
ble dangers  to  the  commonwealth  there 
may  be  in  combinations  of  capital.  These 
combinations,  or  ratner  consolidations  of 
many  interests  into  one  common  company, 
are  all  based  on  the  theory  that  they  will 
result  in  greater  economy,  that  the.  cost 
of  production  will  be  decreased,  and  that 
the  public  will  be  benefited  in  many  ways, 
especially  by  regularity  of  production, 
stability  of  employment  and  reduction  in 
cost  to  the  consumer. 

The  criticisms  as  to  over-valuation  and 
capitalization  are  financial  questions  and 
only  indirectly  affect  the  public  economic 
questions.  If  men  see  fit  to  invest  their 
money  in  watered  securities,  that  is  their 
business,  and  the  public  is  not  responsible 
for  ultimate  losses.  Economic  laws  will 
In  the  final  wind-up  work  out  the  finan- 
cial problem.  But  the  public  are  rightly 
anxious  as  to  the  effect  on  the  consumer. 

All  free  men  oppose  monopoly.  This  op- 
position is  instinctive,  and  the  possibili- 
ties of  monopoly  alarm  us.  The  mere 


fear  of  it  suggests  all  manner  of 
devices  to  prevent  it.  It  is  unques- 
tionably true  that  if  the  recent  com- 
binations of  capital  instead  of  prov- 
ing a benefit  to  the  nublic  as  their  organ- 
izers honestly  believe,  shall  prove  detri- 
mental and  result  in  creating  monopolies 
guilty  of  extortion  and  oppression,  legal 
and  peaceful  remedies  will  surely  be 
found  to  curb  their  rapacity  and  oppres- 
sion. But  these  large  industrial  combina- 
tions produce  only  things  which  are  desir- 
able, not  absolutely  necessary  to  sustain 
life.  If  the  price  of  steel  or  any  other 
like  commodity  is  too  high,  or  its  produc 
tion  is  stopped  by  striking  workmen, 
for  the  time  being,  because  of  low  wages, 
or  by  owners  because  of  low  profits,  the 
public  will  be  put  to  temporary  inconveni- 
ence, but  it  can  cause  no  general  suffer- 
ing. 

Now,  sirs,  if  we  are  over- anxious  about 
the  effect  of  these  mere  possibilities  of 
monopolies  (I  say  possibilities,  because  It 
Is  not  probable  that  in  a etch,  energetic 
country  like  ours,  any  such  industrial 
monopolies  can  be  either  created  or  main- 
tained), what  must  be  the  measure  of 
anxiety  as  to  placing  the  control  of  the 
fuel  of  the  country  in  one  organization, 
and  that,  too,  an  organization  without 
capital  or  responsibility? 

Fuel  is  the  life's  blood  of  our  age.  It 
is  as  essential  as  food.  Food  production 
can  never  be  monopolized.  However  low 
the  wages  and  small  the  reward  of  the 
tillers  of  the  soil,  the  labor-reformer  has 
not  succeeded  in  controlling  farming. 
The  farmers  know  no  restriction  in  hours 
of  labor. 

But  what  of  fuel?  Without  a dollar  In- 
vested in  property,  the  fuel  of  the  coun- 
try has  been  absolutely  monopolized.  Not 
a ton  of  coal  could  be  mined  in  the  United 
States  without  the  consent  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  \merica  u/tless  it  was 
mined  protected  by  guns  and  at  the  risk 
of  destruction  of  life  and  property.  Is 
this  a serious  situation?  The  dangers 
from  combinations  of  capital  are  mere 
possibilities,  but  the  results  of  the  fuel 
monopoly  are  actual. 

A Monster  Monopoly. 

We  are  not  left  to  conjecture.  The 
facts  are  before  us.  The  LTnited  Mine 
Workers  have  created  a monster  monop 
oly.  They  did  shut  up  the  anthracite 
mines  for  more  than  five  months.  They 
taxed  the  bituminous  laborers  and  all  la- 
borers over  whom  all  organized  labor  had 
control  to  support  the  strike.  The  own- 
ers of  bituminous  mines,  some  in  self- 
defense,  others  in  the  hope  of  gain,  con- 
tributed freely  to  the  strike  fund.  The 
public,  especially  in  the  west,  contributed 
freely.  More  than  three  million  dollars 
were  raised  to  carry  on  what  they  called 
the  industrial  war.  With  what  result? 
The  price  of  both  anthracite  and  bltum- 
ous  coal  more  than  doubled.  The  supply 
was  inadequate.  The  public  was  suffer- 
ing, not  only  from  the  high  price  but 
from  the  scarcity  of  coal.  Industrial  op- 
erations closed  down  and  men  were 
thrown  out  of  employment.  All  over  th  ? 
land,  except  in  the  districts  that  could 
be  supplied  by  the  great  anthracite  coat 
companies,  the  poor,  the  honest  workman 
and  the  well-to-do.  suffered  for  want  of 
fuel.  In  the  middle  of  winter,  in  a land 
of  plenty,  this  gigantic  monopoly  had 
the  power  to  create  a scarcity  of  fuel 
and  bring  distress  upon  a whole  nation. 

Who  has  been  benefited  by  it?  Primar- 
ily, the  bituminous  coal  fields.  It  was 
necessary  for  the  Mine  Workers'  associa- 


tion  to  keep  them  at  work,  so  that  their 
hard  earnings  might  be  taxed  to  support 
the  strike  in  the  anthracite  coal  fields, 
and  yet  the  price  of  bituminous  coal  was 
higher  than  that  of  anthracite.  Chicago, 
that  with  such  consideration  sent  a 
bishop  to  meet  a number  of  us  to  warn 
us  that  Chicago  was  contributing  to  the 
support  of  the  strike,  and  that  the  Chris- 
tian people  of  Chicago  demanded  that  we 
should  surrender  to  the  Mine  Workers  — 
telling  us,  too,  in  solemn  accents,  as 
though  he  were  pronouncing  the  final 
judgment  on  man,  that  Chicago  would 
continue  to  contribute— wound  up  by  is- 
suing pathetic  appeals  to  the  anthracite 
operators  to  send  them  coal,  although  it 
is  in  a bituminous  district.  You  look  in 
vain  for  any  benefits  except  those  . art 
have  inured  to  the  bituminous  operators, 
and  certain  of  the  individual  anthracite 
'operators.  The  public  suffered.  The 
workmen  all  over  the  land  suffered,  and 
the  Mine  Workers  themselves  gained  no 
advantage,  except  that  which  is  claimed 
by  the  distinguished  literary  gentleman 
who  read  an  interesting  paper  here  on 
Monday,  that  they  had  become  masters 
of  the  situation.  (Laughter).  Worse  than 
all  this,  riot,  bloodshed  and  destruction 
of  property  with  personal  injury  to  thou- 
sands of  persecuted  fellow-workmen, 
marked  the  monopoly’s  efforts.  Then, 
too,  it  must  be  peculiarly  gratifying  to 
the  distinguished  protectionist  statesmen 
and  politicians,  who  have  smiled  so 
sweetly  and  tenderly  on  this  labor  coal- 
monopoly,  that  the  United  Mine  Workers 
of  America  have  accomplished  what  the 
propaganda  of  revenue  reformers  in  a 
generation  of  activity  failed  to  accom- 
plish. The  duty  on  coal  has  been  re 
pealed. 

It  is  seldom  that  the  violation  of  sound 
economic  business  rules  so  quickly  brings 
with  it  such  a series  of  disasters.  How 
far  the  public  will  take  to  heart  the  les- 
son that  has  been  taught  is,  of  course,  as 
it  always  is,  an  unknown  problem.  But 
this  commission  represents  the  dignity 
which  ever  must  uphold  law  and  order, 
the  justice  that  is  inherent  in  righteous 
judgment,  and  the  wisdom  that  can  re- 
spect the  progress  and  mighty  achieve- 
ments of  our  social  and  business  condi- 
tions which  have  produced  such  marvel- 
ous prosperity.  And,  holding  fast  to  that 
which  is  good,  it  will  be  slow  to  re- 
commend a new  order  of  things  that  may 
lead  to  the  dire  results  which  a six 
months’  trial  has  already  produced 

Operators  Defended. 

But  someone  will  say,  “Oh,  all  these 
direful  results  might  have  been  averted 
by  you  operators.”  How?  By  a surren- 
der to  unjust  demands.  Yes;  the  evil  day 
could  have  been  postponed.  But  is  cow- 
ardly surrender  a characteristic  of 
American  citizenship?  The  Civil  war 
could  have  been  averted  had  we  surren- 
dered to  the  Southern  Confederacy. 

Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves.  Men 
charged  with  the  management  of  prop- 
erty, conscious  of  no  wrong-doing,  be- 
lieving they  are  dealing  justly  with  their 
employes,  ought  not  to  surrender  at  the 
dictation  of  labor  leaders,  whose  reputa- 
tion and  subsistence  depend  upon  their 
success  in  formulating  impracticable  de- 
mands, and  thereby  stirring  up  strife. 

The  record  shows  that  an  honest  effort 
was  made  to  convince  the  United  Mine 
Workers  that  their  demands  were  un- 
just. Who  now  will  say,  in  the  light  of 
the  testimony,  that  the  demand  for  a uni- 
form rate  of  wages  extending  over  all 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

the  anthracite  regions  was  reasonable? 
The  differences  in  conditions  between  th# 
anthracite  operations  and  the  bituminous 
operations  were  clearly  pointed  out  to 
these  labor  leaders. 

You  asked  the  question  whether  I had 
changed  in  this,  that  I was  willing  to 
meet  representatives.  Listen  to  my  story. 

Story  of  Early  Conferences. 

We  met  them,  as  they  requested,  be- 
fore the  National  Civic  Federation,  and 
discussed  the  whole  situation.  At  the  re- 
quest of  the  chairman  of  the  Civic  Feder- 
ation, we  were  invited  to  meet  Mr.  John 
Mitchell  and  Mr.  Fahey  and  Mr.  Duffy 
and  Mr.  Nicholls  before  the  Civic  Federa- 
tion in  New  York;  and,  as  humble  peti- 
tioners, we  disregarded  every  feeling  of 
pride,  and  we  met  them — not  on  equal 
terms,  because  they  had  every  advantage. 
The  Civic  Federation  had  been  called  in 
by  them  as  their  ally,  and  we  were  cited 
to  appear  before  this  industrial  branch  of 
the  Civic  Federation  and  meet  these  gen- 
tlemen. We  appeared  there  in  answer  to 
the  summons.  We  met  in  the  rooms  of  a 
church.  There  were  gathered  around  us 
many  distinguished  gentlemen — some  bish- 
ops, and  others  dressed  like  bishops,  and 
many  that  we  did  not  know.  We  heard 
their  complaints,  and  we  listened  with 
patience,  and  answered  as  best  we  could. 
A whole  day  was  taken  up  in  free  dis- 
cussion with  all  these  gentlemen,  in 
which  each  one  was  treated  with  the  ut- 
most civility.  Every  phase  of  the  situa- 
tion that  could  occur  to  us  was  fairly  pre- 
sented and  discussed.  And  Mr.  Mitchell 
exercised  the  cool  patience  and  the  ex- 
cellent judgment  that  he  always  exercises 
in  discussing  these  problems. 

At  the  end  of  the  day,  the  Civic  Federa- 
tion, on  their  own  motion,  asked  for  an 
adjournment,  to  take  time  to  consider 
the  problem,  on  condition  that  we  would 
not  store  coal  during  the  month  of 
April;  that  we  only  mine  normally,  the 
dread  being  that  if  they  did  not  force  the 
issue  at  once  we  would  continue  to  mine 
coal  and  store  it,  so  that  the  public  would 
not  be  forced  into  forcing  us.  And  the 
condition  was  finally  made  that  “If  you 
are  good,  and  do  not  take  advantage  of 
this  interregnum,”  or  what  we  call  “ces- 
sation of ’hostilities,”  “for  one  month;  f 
you  will  only  mine  normally,  then  we  will 
come  back  together  here  at  the  end  cf 
one  month,  and  we  will  see  whether  con- 
ditions are  such  as  to  enable  us  to  brirg 
about  a settlement.” 

Second  Meeting1. 

We  all  pledged  ourselves  not  to  mire 
excessively— to  mine  normally,  and  not  to 
store  coal.  At  the  end  of  thirty  days  ue 
met  in  that  same  place  again.  We  found 
that  these  labor  leaders  had  surrounded 
themselves  with  a committee  of  twenty- 
four  miners,  representatives  of  the  miners 
in  the  region;  and  a whole  day  was  again 
consumed  in  free  and  familiar  discus- 
sion, and  with  the  utmost  good  temper 
throughout.  During  all  that  time,  the 
very  distinguished  gentlemen  who  consti- 
tute the  Civic  Federation  sat  there,  wise- 
ly looking  on;  and  not  one  of  them,  with 
the  exception  of  Senator  Hanna  and  a 
few  of  the  labor  leaders  (two  of  them,  I 
believe,)  offering  any  advice;  but  puffing 
good  cigars,  they  seemed  to  enjoy  the 
discussion,  which  was  carried  on  princi- 
pally between  Mr.  Mitchell  and  myse'f. 

Then  what  followed?  Why  one  of  the 
learned  Thebans  (laughter)  thought  it 
would  be  a good  thing  to  have  a sub-com- 
mittee appointed;  and  the  suggestion  was 
made  that  a committee  of  our  employes 


235 


be  appointed  and  a committee  of  opera- 
tors be  appointed,  with  a view  of  consid- 
ering the  whole  subject  and  reporting  to 
the  Civic  Federation.  We  agreed  to  this. 
Then  Mr.  Mitchell  got  up  and  said  it 
would  not  be  fair  to  their  side  to  hat  e 
only  employes,  and  he  asked  me  per- 
sonally whether  I would  object  to  the 
presidents  of  the  Mine  Workers’  associa- 
tion being  on  that  committee.  I promptly 
said  I did  not  object — that  they  might 
represent  our  employes  and  then  three 
coal  presidents  were  appointed,  and  the 
three  district  presidents.  Then  came  Mr. 
Mitchell's  second  appeal,  so  gracious  and 
so  suggestive  that  I yielded  at  once.  Said 
he:  “Why  not  let  me  be  on  that  com- 

mittee?” And  we  said;  "Yes;  you  shall 
be  on  that  committee.”  So  the  committee 
was  four  on  their  side,  not  one  of  whom 
was  an  employe.  But  we  treated  them 
as  representatives  of  our  employes,  and 
we  met. 

Some  Unpublished  History. 

Now1,  mark  you,  one  thing  about  that. 
With  a great  deal  of  caution  the  resolu- 
tion was  passed  that  the  meetings  of  this 
committee  should  remain  a profound  se- 
cret, and  nobody  should  divulge  the  result 
except  before  the  Civic  Federation,  which 
was  to  be  reconvened  at  the  call  of  the 
chairman  to  hear  the  report  of  this  com- 
mittee. The  committee  met,  and  they 
met  in  my  office  in  New  York;  and  I 
do  not  know  how  many  hours  each  day 
we  were  there,  but  we  spent  the  whole  of 
the  day  there.  One  day  we  did  not  go  out 
of  the  building;  we  took  our  lunch  there. 
We  spent  the  next  day  there,  eating  our 
lunches  quietly,  and  we  had  a pleasant 
conversation,  and  we  discussed  these 
questions  as  fully  as  we  could. 

We  showed  how  we  could  not  increase 
the  price  of  coal,  by  exhibiting  our  ac- 
counts. We  gave  the  schedule  of  em- 
ployment that  afterwards  I handed  to 
Mr.  Commissioner  Wright.  We  offered  to 
put  ail  our  books  at  their  disposal,  to  see 
whether  it  was  true  that  we  were  dealing 
fairly  with  them.  We  told  them  fairly 
that  however  beneficial  they  believed 
organized  labor  might  prove  to  us,  they 
had  not  succeeded  in  demonstrating,  in 
the  past  two  years,  since  they  had  enter  d 
the  field,  their  ability  either  to  insure  dis- 
cipline or  to  work  harmoniously  with  us 
And  we  begged  of  them  to  be  patient,  to 
perfect  their  organization,  to  correct  the 
abuses  which  we  pointed  out  existed 
there;  and  we  told  them  that  whenever 
they  did  show  that  they  could  be  of  real, 
substantial  benefit  to  the  coal  operators 
we  would  meet  them. 

We  parted  on  the  best  of  terms.  We 
had  no  idea  when  we  parted,  that  either 
of  those  men  had  it  in  mind  to  strik->: 
and  the  conduct  of  Mr.  John  Mitchell  af- 
terwards proved  that  at  that  time  he 
did  not  contemplate  advising  a strike. 
What  happened  when  we  left? 

Mr.  Darrow:  When  was  that.  Mr 

Baer;  do  you  recall? 

Mr.  Baer:  Mr.  Nichols  can  give  you 

the  dates.  I have  not  the  diaries  here. 

And  then  what  happened?  The  office 
was  full  of  reporters— those  modest  peo- 
ple who  never  ask  you  questions  that 
you  do  not  want  to  answer.  (Laughter). 
We  held  a little  consultation  as  to  what 
should  be  given  out  to  the  public;  and  it 
was  agreed  that  the  common  answer 
should  be  given  that  our  lips  were  sealed, 
that  our  report  could  only  he  made  to  the 
Civic  Federation.  \nd  Mr.  Mitchell  was 
instructed  to  represent  us,  and  notify  the 
chairman,  who  was  to  fix  the  time  for 
meeting. 


236 


Never  Convened. 

Strange  to  say.  the  Civic  Federation 
never  convened  to  hear  that  report.  At 
a crucial  time,  when  they  had  heard  our 
discussions  before  them,  and  we  had  met 
the  committee  which  they  had  appointed, 
they  did  not  even  have  the  small  courtesy 
to  hear  the  report  that  tnat  committee 
was  willing  to  make,  even  though  it 
would  be  a report  of  no  ability  to  agree. 
Nor  did  they  have  the  manly  purpose  to 
meet  again  and  render  to  each  sloe  tne 
services  which  they  proclaimed  to  tho 
public  they  wanted  to  render,  namely, 
the  power  of  conciliation,  and  the  el- 
fort,  by  honest  talk,  to  bring  men  to- 
gether. But  for  the  mere  purpose  of  sav- 
ing their  faces,  for  fear  no  advantage 
for  the  time  could  come  to  the  particular 
interests  they  represented,  they  never 
convened. 

One  of  our  distinguished  gentlemen  con- 
nected with  that  Civic  Federation,  whoso 
vocation  almost  prohibits  me  from  criti- 
cising him,  has  contented  himself  with 
saying  that  if  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Mr.  Baer 
could  have  been  eliminated  from  the  sit- 
uation, the  Civic  Federation  might  have 
accomplished  results.  (Laughter).  Not 
unless  the  Civic  Federation  is  Dorn 
again.  (Laughter).  The  world  is  still 
deceived  by  honor  (?) 

Now,  I have  mentioned  that  because  ’t 
was  necessary  to  say  so  much  in  order 
to  repel  the  imputation  that  we  have 
been  arbitrary  and  unreasonable  and 
punctilious  in  refusing  to  meet  these  dis- 
tinguished representatives  of  organized 
labor.  Why,  I never  refused  one  an  au- 
dience in  my  life.  No  one  can  every  say 
that  he  applied  to  me  on  any  subject 
that  I refused  to  meet.  I havt  no  objec- 
tion to  meeting  them  under  proper  con- 
ditions. I won't  meet  one  of  them  If  ne 
comes  with  a pistol  and  says,  “If  you 
don't  open  that  door  I'll  blow  your  brains 
out.’’  I will  probably  run  the  risk  ot 
having  my  brains  blown  out. 

Now,  what  is  the  next?  “Vt  ell,  then,” 
they  say,  "but  after  that,  after  that  you 
refused  arbitration.” 

Victim  of  Yellow  Journalism. 

I want  to  say  here  that  the  public  press 
have  amused  themselves  by  inventing  a 
great  many  interviews  with  me;  and  I 
have  had  to  stand  it.  Somebody  asked 
me  why  I waited  until  the  eleventh  hour 
to  deny  something  that  had  been  said  at 
Washington.  My  whole  summer’s  work 
would  have  been  taken  up  in  denying  re- 
ports if  I had  ever  started  on  that  line. 
I am  responsible  for  the  things  that  F 
have  said  under  mv  name,  or  said  pub- 
licly; but  I protest  against  the  vile  stuit 
that  has  been  Injected  into  interviews  pur- 
porting to  come  from  me,  some  of  which 
were  quoted  here  by  one  of  the  speakers, 
saying  “There  is  nothing  to  arbitrate,” 
and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  I do  not  blame 
him  for  it;  because  the  average  man  has 
a right,  if  he  is  simple-minded,  to  believe 
the  newspapers.  (Laughter  and  great 
applause). 

Mr.  Darrow:  I agree  with  you  about 

that. 

Mr.  Baer:  Well,  I am  glad  we  agiee 

on  something. 

But  the  suggestion  was  made  that  there 
was  an  offer  of  arbitration  made.  Yes; 
there  was  a famous  dispatch  that  reached 
me  out  in  the  country.  1 remember  I was 
up  dining  at  Senator  Cameron's,  and  it 
was  sent  there  by  special  messenger.  The 
proposition  was  signed  by  John  Mitchell 
and  T.  D.  Nicholls.  I do  not  want  to  read 
the  whole  of  It;  I can  state  the  substance. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


"We  propose  that  the  industrial  branch 
of  the  National  Civic  Federation  select  a 
committee  of  five  persons  to  arbitrate 
and  decide  all  or  any  of  the  questions  in 
dispute.” 

One-Sided  Arbitration. 

Very  modest!  The  industrial  branch  of 
the  Civic  Federation  had  just  kicked  us 
out  of  court,  and  turned  us  down;  and 
yet  it  was  proposed  to  have  an  arbitration 
board  appointed  by  them.  Mr.  Mitchell 
is  a member  of  that  industrial  branch; 
Mr.  Gompers,  and  all  the  labor  leaders. 
We  were  not  to  have  even  the  small  fa- 
vor of  selecting  one  man  on  that  commit- 
tee. The  arbitrators  wTere  to  be  selected 
by  the  industrial  branch  of  the  Civic  Fed- 
eration. 

Well,  with  the  experience  we  had,  with- 
out regard  to  the  general  unfairness  of 
such  a proposition,  would  any  reputable 
man  have  agreed  to  such  a pioposition? 
We  did  not;  and  we  are  justified.  It 
•was  unfair  in  its  terms  to  ask  that  any- 
body should  select  an  arbitration,  and  the 
people  that  were  asked  to  select  it  were 
not  fair  and  disinterested  people. 

What  followed  next?  Why,  that  if  we 
would  not  do  rhis.  then  a most  excep- 
tionable committee  should  be  appointed. 

“Should  the  above  proposition  be  unac- 
ceptable to  you,  we  propose  that  a com- 
mittee composed  of  Archbishop  Ireland, 
Bishop  Potter,  and  one  other  person 
whom  these  two  may  select” 

There  we  have  no  choice  again.  We 
have  no  voice  in  ail  this  business. 

“Shall  be  selected,  authorized  to  make 
an  investigation  into  the  wages  and  con- 
ditions of  employment  existing  in  the 
anthracite  field;  and  if  they  decide  that 
the  average  annual  wages  received  by 
anthracite  mine  workers  are  sufficient  to 
enable  them  to  live,  maintain  and  educate 
their  families  in  a manner  comformabl® 
to  established  American  standards  and 
consistent  with  American  citizenship,  wo 
agree  to  withdraw  our  claims  for  higher 
wages.” 

Well,  I have  this  to  say  about  that. 
This  alternative  proposition  to  refer  these 
things  to  a committee  composed  of  two 
very  distinguished  prelates,  experts,  no 
doubt  in  matters  spiritual,  but  perhaps 
just  in  proportion  that  they  had  given  at- 
tention to  things  spiritual,  they  might 
need  somebody  with  them  on  that  com- 
mittee to  give  advice  on  things  temporal. 
These  honest,  learned  prelates,  were  to 
pass  upon  the  wages  and  conditions  ex- 
isting in  the  anthracite  fields,  not  for  tie 
purpose  of  determining  whether,  under 
the  controlling  business  conditions  of  the 
anthracite  fields,  through  which  wages 
are  regulated,  the  wages  were  fair,  but 
to  decide  the  startling  proposition  as  to 
whether  they  were  sufficient  to  enab’e 
the  mine  workers  to  live,  maintain  and 
educate  their  families  in  a manner  con- 
formable to  established  American  stand- 
ards and  consistent  with  American  citi- 
zenship. More  impractical  suggestion  was 
never  formed.  It  would  require  mai  y 
years  of  examination  to  determine  just 
what  those  standards  were,  to  start 
with,  and  to  determine  whether,  under  a 1 
the  conditions,  it  meant  that  a man 
should  earn  enough  money  to  send  his 
son  to  Yale  or  Harvard,  or  to  some  mod- 
est college  like  Franklin  and  Marshall, 
where  we  keep  down  expenses. 

All  these  things  are  problems  that 
would  enter  into  the  question  of 
the  society  these  American  citizens 
were  to  go  into,  so  as  to  con- 
form themselves  to  the  usages  of 


American  citizenship.  Some  of  them 
I knew  would  be  rejected  because  some 
of  the  things  which  seemed  to  be  c .in- 
sistent with  American  citizenship  are  not 
worthy  of  it. 

Meddling  Interference. 

We  pass  by  the  meddling  interference 
of  men  in  high  and  low  places,  whereby 
the  struggle  was  prolonged  and  the 
reign  of  terror,  with  all  its  persecutions 
and  oppression,  was  continued  for  nearly 
six  months,  forming  a record  of  lawless- 
ness and  crime  unparallelled  in  any  com- 
munity save  tvhere  contending  armies 
meet  on  fields  of  legal  battle,  whose  de- 
tails were  so  horrible  and  shocking  that 
this  commission  in  mercy  stopped  their 
further  recital. 

But  I am  not  unmindful  of  the  advice 
which'  was  specially  volunteered  on  Mon- 
day by  the  distinguished  literary  philan- 
thropist from  Chicago.  He  tells  us  wi  h 
great  satisfaction,  “When  the  masters  n 
this  business,  ex-masters" — yes,  that  is 
his  theory,  after  recounting  the  strug- 
gles, he  calls  attention  to  the  fact  th  t 
the  struggle  on  the  part  of  the  organiza- 
tion whose  praises  he  was  singing  was 
for  mastering,  and  he  rubs  it  in  by  be- 
ginning a sentence,  "When  the  maste  s 
in  this  business,  ex-masters” . 

Mr.  H.  D.  Lloyd:  I meant,  because  it 
was  brought  under  the  control  of  tl  e 
whole  people.  I did  not  mean  the  work- 
men had  become  your  masters. 

Mr.  Baer:  Oh,  you  will  have  to  pub'ish 
an  addition  to  your  speech  to  exp:a  n 
some  things  in  it.  (Laughter). 

He  goes  on  further  to  tell  us,  that  v e 
make  both  sides  of  the  bargain,  ours  ai  d 
theirs,  and  that  is  the  arrangement  th;  t 
must  cease.  He  paints  « picture  to  him- 
self that  is  one  of  abject  slavery.  That 
the  operators  do  not  bargain  with  their 
men,  but  with  the  slaves  under  them  ai  d 
weekly  deal  out  such  pittance  for  the 
work  as  we  see  fit  to  give,  and  in  his 
exaltation  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  a 
righteous  court,  sitting  in  judgment, 
could  some  day  make  us  account  for  the 
wrongs  we  had  done,  is  that  the  testi- 
mony in  this  case?  Who  has  ever  re- 
fused to  bargain?  Every  day  in  the  mines 
bargains  are  made  with  the  men.  Is 
there  a man  incapable  of  bargaining  fer 
himself?  It  takes  two  to  make  a bar- 
gain. We  offer  them  work  and  we  tell  them 
what  we  will  give,  and  they  say  what 
they  are  willing  to  take  for  it.  and  an 
agreement  is  made  between  man  and  man. 
and  he  goes  to  work  and  works  honestly 
on  the  contract.  The  man  works  con- 
tentedly and  receives  his  pay,  and  that 
system,  we  are  told,  is  slavery  and  one- 
sided. Who  enslaves  the  men?  There  is 
plenty  of  work  in  this  country.  If  a man 
comes  to  me  and  offers  to  work  for  me 
and  I am  willing  to  pay  him  $2  a day  and 
he  is  content  to  take  it,  that  is  a bar- 
gain as  good  and  as  sacred  in  the  eyns 
of  the  law  as  any  bargain  could  be  that 
was  drawn  by  the  distinguished  gentle- 
man from  Chicago.  His  theory  is,  the 
men  are  not  competent  to  bargain  for 
themselves.  But  there-  is  to  be  some 
grand  empiric  council,  that  sits  some- 
where and  exercises  general  Jurisdiction 
over  the  world,  and  if  I want  a servant, 
or  an  employe  to  do  some  work,  I am  not 
to  go  to  the  man,  but  to  this  great  coun- 
cil and  say,  “My  dear  and  reverend  sirs, 
I want  an  employe.  What  may  I give 
him,  who  shall  he  be  and  will  you  gi\  • 
him  to  me?"  That  is  his  idea  of  free- 
dom that  he  proclaims  here,  and  it  ia 
on  that  account  and  because  we  ha\« 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


never  agreed  to  anything  of  that  kind 
he  tells  us,  with  a sweet  assurance  that 
we  are  “ante-diluvian  captains  of  indus- 
try.” (Laughter). 

Having  Fun  with.  Lloyd. 

I always  admire  the  happy  facility  of 
reformers  for  inventing  good  phrases. 
“Ante-diluvian  captains  of  industry” 
struck  me  so  forcibly  that  from  the  grand 
notions  and  criticisms  that  had  been 
given  I supposed  really  here  was  a man 
who  did  know  something  about  business. 
But,  when  he  stopped  speaking  and  I 
was  introduced  to  him,  I asked  him  what 
experience  he  had  had  in  dealing  with  la- 
bor, and  he  frankly  confessed  that  he  had 
had  none.  So  that  my  hope  of  securing  a 
competent  superintendent  as  a “capta  n 
of  industry”  that  was  not  “ante-diluvian  ’ 
was  immediately  dissipated.  (Laughter). 

Then  comes  his  citation  from  New  Zea- 
land. New  Zealand  and  Australasia  hat  e 
been,  in  the  past,  a fine  theme  for  all 
manner  of  theorists.  It  is  a wonderful 
country.  Oh,  such  great  things  were  ex- 
pected of  it.  I have  watched  its  pro- 
gress closely.  New  Zealand  has  pro- 
gressed marvelously.  It  has  a public 
debt  now  of  $300  per  capita.  That  would 
amount  in  Pennsylvania  to  a debt  cf 
eighteen  hundred  millions.  The  taxes  are 
nineteen  dollars  a head  there.  The  an- 
nual loss  in  the  operation  of  railroads  for 
the  last  ten  years  has  been  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  a million  dollars  a year,  and 
so  beneficial  to  the  public  has  the  Aus- 
tralian system  of  railroads  been,  that  v e 
have  the  authority  of  a professor  of  Har- 
vard, quoting  Mr.  Henry  Wood's  bock 
for  the  statement,  that  in  Australia  it 
costs  as  much  to  transport  on  the  rail- 
ways there  a distance  of  two  hunded  and 
fifty  miles,  a bushel  of  wheat,  as  it  dots 
to  take  it  from  Chicago  to  Liverpool. 

A Perplexing  Problem. 

The  anthracite  coal  trade  has  for  fifty 
years  been  a most  perplexing  problem. 
It  has,  perhaps,  aroused  greater  expecta- 
tions and  caused  more  disappointments 
than  any  large  business  enterprise  in  the 
country.  To  the  untutored  mind  it  seems 
so  easy  to  dig  coal  and  to  sell  it  at  a 
profit.  But  to  the  men  who  have  given 
their  best  thoughts  and  years  to  the  prob- 
lem it  becomes,  perhaps  because  they  are 
ante-diluvian,  one  of  the  most  complex 
of  all  industrial  problems.  Indeed,  when 
I look  back  over  more  than  thirty  years 
of  my  own  connection  with  the  Reading 
system  and  recall  the  struggles  of  the 
system  and  the  able  men  who  have  gone 
before  me,  it  seems  that  their  labors  were 
like  those  of  Sisyphus. 

The  problem  was  to  persuade  the  pub- 
lic to  use  anthracite  as  a fuel.  New 
stoves  and  new  furnaces  had  to  be  in- 
vented and  perhaps  the  first  real  result 
in  bringing  about  its  consumption  was  in 
the  furnace.  Some  competent  Welsh 
manufacturers  coming  early  to  this  coun- 
try, iron  manufacturers,  discovered,  what 
the  chemists  knew,  that  anthracite  coal 
was  a natural  coal,  and  they  constructed 
furnaces  capable  of  burning  anthracite 
coal  as  a substitute  for  charcoal  at  that 
time,  and  in  a very  few  short  years  the 
old  charcoal  furnaces  in  the  history  of 
Eastern  Pennsylvania  disappeared  and 
the  charcoal  furnaces  were  converted 
into  anthracite  furnaces.  That  gave  a 
great  impetus  to  the  trade,  and  year  by 
year  its  consumption  grew  wider  and 
wider  and  year  by  year  the  development 
of  the  coal  industry  increased  abnormal- 
ly, Up  in  the  Wyoming  region  the  min- 


ing of  coal  is  practically  simple.  At  least, 
it  was  in  the  beginning.  The  veins  are 
flat  and  no  very  great  expense  was  re- 
quired to  open  a colliery.  The  conditions 
were  somewhat  similar  to  many  condi- 
tions in  the  bituminous  coal  fields.  Rail- 
roads were  built  in  there  and  they  want- 
ed traffic.  They  gave  all  manner  of  in- 
ducements to  individuals  to  develop  the 
mines,  so  that  in  a very  few  short  years 
there  was  a production  of  anthracite  coal 
in  great  excess  of  the  market  demands. 
The  Wyoming  region  has  continued  to 
develop  on  those  lines  so  that,  taking  up 
the  distribution  of  coal  under  normal 
conditions,  you  will  find  the  Wyoming 
region  produces  thirty  million  tons  a 
year,  what  we  call  the  Lehigh  produces 
seven  and  from  fourteen  xo  sixteen  are 
produced  in  the  Schuylkill  region.  Here 
was  the  property.  You  know  that 
coal  cannot  well  be  stored.  Bituminous 
coal  can  not  be  stored  in  very  large  quan- 
tities because  it  is  apt  to  ignite.  Anthra- 
cite coal  can  be  stored,  but  the  cost  of 
storing  it  is  very  great.  We  have  made 
some  experiments  with  the  question  of 
storing  coal  and  picking  it  up  again,  to- 
gether with  the  breakage  and  the  low- 
ering of  the  grade  of  coal,  and  it 
amounts,  as  near  as  we  can  get  at  it,  to 
26  cents  a ton.  We  have  found  that  we 
can  not  store  coal  and  pick  it  up  under 
a less  charge  than  that,  and  then  tne 
facilities  must  be  extraordinary.  But  we 
have  never  been  in  a condition  to  get 
these  yards.  We  have  tried  it,  for  t'n9 
purpose  of  storing  coal,  and  in  the  past 
this  has  been  the  condition  of  the  trade: 
In  the  summer  months  people  do  not  want 
coal.  The  great  consumption  of  coal  is 
in  the  domestic  sizes,  although  the  man- 
ufacturers, of  course,  consume  the  small 
sizes  of  coal  during  the  summer  months 
as  well  as  in  the  winter.  The  result  nas 
been  in  the  past  that  during  the*  six 
months  from  April  to  the  first  of  October 
we  could  not  operate  our  mines  at  all, 
because  there  was  no  market  for  the  coal. 
The  inconvenience  was  enormous  in  this, 
that  for  the  transportation  companies 
their  cars  were  out  of  use,  their  locomo- 
tives were  out  of  use  and  all  their  crews 
were  remaining  idle.  They  lest  the  in- 
vestment not  only  of  all  their  capital, 
but  they  were  compelled  to  keep  up  that 
equipment  so  that  in  the  six  months  of 
the  year  where  there  was  an  active  de- 
mand for  coal  the  whole  system  would 
not  be  congested,  and  the  movement  of 
coal  itself  by  the  railroads  was  accom- 
panied with  great  additional  expense. 
That  condition  we  have  tried  to  meet  in 
various  ways,  and  it  has  resulted  un- 
doubtedly, at  times,  in  depriving  the 
miners  in  the  coal  regions  of  steady  work. 
No  one  has  ever  denieo  that  was  an  evil. 
The  trouble  in  the  anthracite  coal  regions 
in  the  past  was  not  the  rate  of  wages, 
but  whatever  ground  of  complaint  these 
men  might  have  was  in  the  fact  that  oy 
reason  of  market  conditions  it  was  im- 
practicable to  carry  on  colliery  operations 
every  day  in  the  week  or  in  the  montn, 
and  thereby  their  ability  to  work  six 
days  in  the  week  was  taken  from  them. 
-Although  the  per  diem  wages  were  fair, 
when  men  could  only  work  three  days  a 
week  the  annual  result  was  not  satisfac- 
tory. But  it  was  a condition  that  could 
not  be  met  except  by  the  enlargement  of 
the  markets. 

The  Strike  of  1900. 

When  this  exceptional  prosperity  came 
upon  us  again  in  1898  ai-.a  1899.  tnere  was 
a demand  for  coal,  and  the  men,  instead 


237 


of  being  given  work  three  days,  were  en- 
abled to  work  rive  and  six  days.  Then 
came  1900,  in  which  the  demand  was  still 
•great  and  increasing,  so  that  •'nth  the  op- 
erators and  the  transportation  compa- 
nies were  being  taxed  to  their  utmost  to 
mine  and  transport  the  coal  to  the  mar- 
kets. Then  came  the  disturbing  element, 
the  Miners’  union,  and  under  exceedingly 
favorable  conditions— I mean  favorable 
to  them— they  succeeded  in  getting  an  or- 
ganization, and  getting  up  a strike  which 
resulted  in  a compromise  of  10  per  cent. 
Let  me  show  you  how  little  they  gained, 
so  far  as  that  is  concerned.  At  that  time, 
and  for  years  we  had  been  operating  in 
the  Schuylkill  region  under  the  sliding 
scale,  a system  of  profit-sharing  whereby 
when  the  price  of  coal  increased,  the 
wages  increased,  the  omv  fair  and  honest 
way  in  which  to  increase  or  decrease 
wages,  so  that  the  men  snail  share  in  the 
prosperity,  and  so  that  they  shall  prac- 
tice economy  during  the  periods  of  de- 
pression. The  only  objection  made  to  the 
sliding  scale  was  that  it  had  not  a mini- 
mum basis.  Perhaps  it  ougnt  to  have 
had.  I have  discussed  that  in  a pamphlet 
which  I will  hand  to  the  commission,  and 
shall  not  now  review  that  situation,  but 
simply  to  point  out  this,  that  if  the  Phila 
delphia  and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  com- 
pany had  accepted  Mr.  Mitchell's  propo 
sition  of  10  per  cent,  as  was  done  In  the 
other  regions,  they  would  have  received 
less  money  than  they  did  under  the  slid 
ing  scale.  We  voluntarily,  because  we 
felt  that  only  a limited  number  of  our 
men  belonged  to  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, increased  ..hat  in  1900  from  10  pe: 
cent,  to  16  per  cent.,  so  that  the  men  in 
the  regions  would  receive  the  same  wages 
they  would  have  received  under  the  slid- 
ing scale,  and  on  page  11  of  this  pamphlet 
I have  shown  you  what  under  the  prices 
that  prevailed  since,  the  wages  of  tn»> 
miners  would  have  been.  They  would 
have  received  on  an  average  throughout 
all  the  months,  even  including  April.  190", 
15  per  cent.,  and  in  some  months — Octo- 
ber, 1901— they  would  have  received  20 
per  cent,  increase. 

Ever  since  that  time  we  have  been 
pressed  for  coal.  We  cannot  produce  as 
much  coal  as  the  market  would  take.  A 
series  of  floods  and  disasters  in  1901  and 
1902  of  course  destroyed  our  colliery  ca- 
pacity, and  it  is  therefore  possible  on  ex- 
isting wages  in  the  region  for  any  man 
to  make  average  wages  equal  to  those 
paid  in  any  other  industry  in  the  United 
States. 

If  this  sliding  scale  had  not  been  aban- 
doned, the  mine  workers  would,  under  the 
increased  price  of  coal,  have  been  entitled 
to  the  benefit,  and  their  wrages  would 
have  been  considerably  increased  in  the 
past  few  months. 

The  Question  of  Market. 

Now,  what  other  problem  have  we  to 
meet?  We  cannot  arbitrarily  fix  the  price 
on  coal.  There  are  market  conditions 
that  we  are  not  masters  of.  I see  th  • 
Mine  Workers'  vice  president,  accordin' 
to  an  item  that  Counsel  Wolverton  read, 
thinks  that  they  have  the  power  to  con- 
trol the  markets.  Probably  they  hav>, 
but  I still  will  not  believe  it.  They  arc 
not  as  easily  controlled  as  men  think  they 
are.  There  are  limitations  peculiar  to  th 
anthracite  trade,  and  one  of  these  is  that 
40  per  cent  of  the  output  of  anthracit  ■ 
coal  must  be  sold  in  competition  with 
bituminous  coal,  and  the  normal  price  we 
get  for  that  40  per  cent,  is  below  the  cost 
of  production;  they  include  all  the  small 
sizes,  and  furnace  coal. 


238 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


I call  your  attention  to  page  153  ot 
“Documents  Relating  to  the  Anthracite 
Strike  of  1902,"  where  you  will  see  given 
the  percentage  of  shipments  made  accord-  • 
ing  to  sizes,  showing  that  fiO  per  cent,  has 
been  of  the  prepared  sizes,  and  of  the 
small  sizes,  the  pea,  buckwheat,  No.  1, 
and  smaller  than  Buckwheat  No.  1,  32.7 
per  cent.  These  small  sizes  are  sold  for 
steam  purposes  in  competition  with  bi- 
tuminous coal,  and  must  be  sold  below 
the  cost  of  bituminous  coal  in  order  to 
induce  purchasers  to  buy.  The  lump  coal 
is  used' in  furnace  practice  and  is  in  com- 
petition with  coke.  So  that,  in  point  of 
fact,  any  increase  in  the  price  of  coal 
goes  upon  60  per  cent,  of  the  coal,  which 
represents  the  domestic  sizes.  If  you  will 
make  the  calculation  you  will  see  that, 
roundly,  any  1 per  cent,  increase  in 
wages  will  cause  an  advance  of  two  and 
a half  cents  on  a ton  of  domestic  sizes  of 
coal.  In  addition  to  this,  we  must  not 
overlook  the  fact  that  if  wages  go  up, 
then  materials  and  supplies  necessarily 
participate  in  the  increase,  and  the  gen- 
eral cost  of  mining  coal  is  increased,  the 
proportion  being  about  $1.45  to  $1.50,  rep- 
resenting the  average  cost  under  the  con- 
ditions of  producing  a ton  of  coal— that 
is,  tbe  wage  labor  of  producing  a ton  <.f 
coal— and  from  <0  to  45  cents  representing 
the  supplies  that  go  into  the  cost  of  the 
coal. 

Our  coal  roundly  costs  us  about  $2  to 
put  on  the  car,  and  $1.45  to  $1.50  repre- 
sents wages.  You  can  make  your  own 
calculation.  We  had  25,610  employes  in 
the  Coal  and  Iron  company  in  January, 
and  we  paid  out  in  cash  $1,190,000  in 
wges.  I do  not  think  any  people  are 
starving  when  an  average  of  such  condi- 
tions as  that  is  going  on— and  that  is 
only  an  average  of  what  is  going  on  all 
the  year  around. 

I do  not  want  to  discuss  this  question 
of  wages  very  fully.  The  evidence  is  be- 
fore the  commission.  I confidently  be- 
lieve that  it  justifies  the  position  we  take, 
and  that  any  increase  in  the  rate  would 
not  only  work  injustice  to  the  operatois 
and  to  the  consumer,  but  that,  for  rea- 
sons which  I shall  give,  would  be  of  no 
practical  benefit  to  others. 

Three  Parties. 

The  production  of  coal  is  one  of  the  few 
industries  in  which  there  are  three  par- 
ties to  be  considered:  First,  the  opera- 
tor, because  he  controls  the  business— 
for  the  present  at  least.  (Laughter.)  Sec- 
ond, the  workmen,  and  third,  the  con- 
sumer. In  most  industrial  operations  the 
consumer  is  only  indirectly  interested. 
He  does  not  purchase  the  things  if  the  r 
cost  is  too  great,  but  coal  he  must  pur- 
chase. If  he  is  a manufacturer,  he  re- 
quires it  for  power,  and  every  one  needs 
it  to  cook  his  breakfast  and  warm  his 
stockings.  The  price  can  not  be  arbi- 
trarily fixed.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
the  mine  workers  must  receive  an  ade- 
quate compensation,  measured  by  like 
wages  under  similar  conditions  in  oth  r 
industries,  and,  I take  it— with  some  hesi- 
tation— that  the  operator  may  be  per- 
mitted, under  a normal  condition  of  so- 
ciety, to  have  a little  profit  on  the  capi- 
tal and  work  he  bestows  in  the  business. 
If  the  anthracite  mine  operator  fixes  tl  e 
price  on  anthracite  coal  so  high  that  the 
manufacturer  cannot  use  it,  the  manu- 
facturer will  do  one  of  two  things— pur- 
chase bituminous  coal  or,  if  in  the  lo- 
cality of  his  manufactory  that  can  not 
be  had  to  advantage,  he  will  abandon  the 
site  of  his  manufactory  and  go  to  a more 


favored  locality,  where  ruel  is  cheap  and 
plentiful.  This  has  always  presented  a 
most  troublesome  problem  in  the  anthra- 
cite business.  Whatever  theorists  may 
say,  it  has  been  fortunate  for  the  gen- 
eral public  that  the  transportation  com- 
panies have  been  financially  interested 
in  the  management  of  the  collieries.  Why? 
Why,  for  the  past  twenty-five  years  the 
sharpest  and  severest  industrial  compe- 
tition has  been  waged  between  the  indus- 
tries west  of  the  Alleghenies  and  the  in- 
dustries east  of  the  Alleghenies,  and  time 
and  again,  with  the  developments  at 
Pittsburg,  Alabama  and  Chicago,  the  pre- 
diction was  made  that  all  the  industries 
of  Eastern  Pennsylvania  would  be  de- 
stroyed by  reason  of  the  power  of  these 
Western  manufacturers  to  produce  at  a 
lower  cost. 

Fuel  the  Foundation. 

In  this  problem  of  manufacturing,  fuel 
is  the  foundation  of  everything.  It  there- 
fore becomes  a business  duty  and  a busi- 
ness necessity  to  see  that  in  the  cities 
where  only  anthracite  fuel  can  be  used, 
because  of  smoke  ordinances,  and  in  the 
many  places  among  the  lines  of  the  Read- 
ing system  and  the  New  Jersey  system 
and  the  Lehigh  Valley  system,  thriving 
towns,  full  of  manufactures,  in  Eastern 
Pennsylvania — to  see  that  these  people 
and  these  manufacturers  are  given  coal 
at  a reasonable  price;  because  if  they 
cannot  get  that,  they  will  be  driven  out 
of  business.  And  if  they  are  driven  out 
of  business,  then  the  sources  of  trade  for 
th  railroads  fail. 

Take  a city  like  Reading.  Time  and 
again,  a manufacturer  in  the  past  has 
come  to  me  and  told  me,  “You  must  help 
us.  Here  is  a sharp  competition  with 
Pittsburg  and  Chicago.  We  must  have 
some  way  to  get  cheap  fuel,  and  even 
to  get  cheap  transportation,  to  get  our 
products  in  competition  with  them,  or 
else  our  works  will  close  down.”  And  if 
you  close  down  the  works  in  Eastern 
Pennsylvania— I looked  at  the  census  the 
other  day,  and  I was  surprised  to  find 
that  in  the  territory  reached  by  our  own 
Reading  system,  there  is  over  two  thous- 
and millions  of  dollars  invested  in  manu- 
factures. If  we,  by  any  action  of  ours, 
increase  cost  of  fuel,  increase  cost  of 
freight,  make  it  impossible  for  these  in- 
dustries to  live  and  to  compete  with  the 
more  favored  industries  of  the  West,  then 
we  have  brought  ruin  on  all  of  Eastern 
Pennsylvania;  we  have  destroyed  our 
only  avenues  of  trade,  and  have  involved 
everybody  and  everything  in  one  general 
catastrophe. 

These  are  problems  that  the  ante-dilu- 
vian  captains  of  industry  in  these  days 
must  consider,  and  must  daily  consider — 
how  to  increase  the  wealth  of  the  com- 
munity you  are  serving  by  increasing  its 
prosperity;  because  only  in  that  way  can 
you  add  to  your  revenues;  how  to  return 
to  your  stockholders  a just  payment  for 
the  money  they  have  invested,  and  how 
to  give  honest  wages,  lair  and  full  waees, 
to  the  men  you  employ.  These  are  bur- 
dens. You  may  think  they  are  light;  but 
to  a man  who  is  charged  with  responsi- 
bility they  have  become  terrible  reali- 
ties. (Applause.) 

The  Question  of  Wages. 

What,  then,  can  be  done  practically?  If 
you  increase  wages,  what  will  you  ac- 
complish? If  they  are  too  low,  increase 
them;  it  will  pass  on  to  the  consumer, 
and  that  consumer  will  be  the  rich  and 
the  poor.  If  they  are  just,  then  let  them 
alone. 


What  evidence  have  you  that  they  are 
unjust?  We  were  led  to  believe,  when  an 
attack  was  made  upon  the  horrible  con- 
ditions in  the  anthracite  fields,  that  a 
condition  similar  to  that  in  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  existed,  whereby  men  we;  e 
being  oppressed.  Mr.  Gowen  has  aptly 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  on  the 
basis  of  wages  these  gentlemen  thought 
were  being  paid  in  the  anthracite  regions, 
the  advance  which  they  claim  is  less  than 
the  wages  they  have  actually  been  paid. 
They  started  out  with  the  theory  that  tbe 
men  were  not  getting  fair  wages,  ard 
they  named  the  wages  they  got,  and  then 
said:  “Say,  that  is  too  low;  they  must 
have  more.  Give  them  twenty  per  cent." 
But  giving  them  twenty  per  cent.,  on  tbe 
basis  they  stated  before  this  commis- 
sion, the  sum  they  would  receive  is  less 
than  that  which  they  actually  have  re- 
ceived. 

Surplus  of  Labor. 

Now,  that  the  wages  are  fair,  we  de- 
monstrated by  a number  of  things,  to 
which  I want  to  call  your  attention.  Yiu 
will  remember  that  it  has  been  said  that 
one  of  the  evils  in  the  coal  region  is  that 
there  is  too  much  labor  there.  What  dees 
that  indicate?  Why,  that  labor  there  is 
attractive.  There  is  plenty  of  work  In 
the  United  States,  and  those  men  could 
get  employment  elsewhere.  Are  you  go- 
ing to  increase  the  rate  of  wages,  and 
attract  still  more  people  there  to  sit  down 
and  wait,  in  the  hope  of  getting  enough 
money  in  a day  to  support  them  for  a 
week?  Will  you  improve  the  congested  la- 
bor condition  in  the  anthracite  fields  by 
raising  the  price  of  wages  so  as  to  a - 
tract  all  unemployed  labor  into  that  fie  d 
and  bring  on  a worse  condition  of  things? 

Remember  how  easily  the  trade  of  an- 
thracite mining  is  acquired.  There  is  r.o 
apprenticeship,  such  as  in  ordina;  y 
trades;  no  such  conditions  as  many  of  is 
went  through  when,  as  boys,  we  serv.  d 
as  apprentices,  working  night  and  day  to 
acquire  a trade,  with  little  or  no  r - 
muneration.  I worked  for  less  than  fifty 
dollars  a year,  and  boarded  myself. 

Under  the  mining  laws  of  this  state,  a 
man,  of  course,  must  be  a certified 
miner.  But  there  are  from  the  old  coun- 
try flocks,  hordes  of  strong  men.  They 
come  here  as  laborers  and  obtain  work- 
in  the  mines.  They  are  paid  largt  r 
wages  than  they  ever  dreamed  of  n 
their  own  countries— from  $1.50  up  to  $1.  .5 
or  $2  a day.  They  work  away  for  two 
years  in  the  mines,  receiving  this  pay, 
and  at  the  end  of  that  two  years  they 
can  become  certified  miners.  That  is  tbe 
only  apprenticeship  they  have  served. 
After  that  they  can  go  into  the  mi  e 
early  in  the  morning  and  drill  their  ho  e 
and  blast  their  coal,  and  at  11  o'clock 
walk  out  to  gmoke  their  pipe  and  enj  y 
that  leisure  which  the  eight-hour  sys- 
tem, it  is  proposed,  shall  bring  about— 
that  leisure  to  enable  them  to  learn  to 
read  good  novels  and  sound  religious 
books.  (Laughter.) 

Not  a Skilled  Trade. 

You  see,  it  is  no  skilled  trade.  There  is 
no  protection  such  as  prevails  in  the  arts 
—the  carpenter  and  the  mason  and  tl  e 
bricklayer  and  all  men,  and  above  a 1 
the  machinist,  who  has  to  devote  yea  s 
to  acquiring  great  skill.  Are  these  mer, 
who  work  five  and  six  hours  a day,  at  d 
earn  the  sums  of  money  we  have  shown 
you  that  they  earn,  to  become  public 
pensioners  at  the  expense  of  every  hon- 
est working  man  in  this  city,  and  in  all 
the  cities  of  the  seaboard,  who  is  work 


ing  for  a living,  and  is  compelled  to  buy 
coal  to  keep  him  warm  and  to  cook  his 
meals? 

If  there  is  any  sociological  question  in- 
volved here,  it  requires  you  to  consider 
most  carefully  whether,  in  trying  to  do 
some  favor  to  the  coal  miners  in  the  an- 
thracite regions,  you  are  not  only  going 
to  work  injustice  to  the  operators,  but 
you  are  going  to  do  a wrong  to  every 
man  in  the  community  who  is  a con- 
sumer of  coal. 

Against  tlie  Eight  Hour  Day. 

I have  heretofore  called  attention  to  the 
sliding  scale.  I intended  to  discuss  the 
question  of  eight  hours  a day;  but  1 will 
let  that  go.  Enough  his  been  said  upon 
that  subject.  I do  not  believe  in  the  the- 
ory. There  are  some  trades  where  eight 
hours  is  enough;  but  there  ought  to  b« 
no  limitation  on  work  in  the  collieries. 
If  the  breaker  time  is  reduced  to  eight 
hours  per  day  the  output  of  coal  would  b« 
so  restricted  that  the  cost  of  coal  would 
be  increased  enormously.  Of  course  the 
answer  would  be,  “build  new  breaker* 
and  sink  new  shafts."  That  is  easily 
said.  Expend  another  half  million  dol- 
lars at  each  colliery;  and  then  the  pub- 
lic would  have  to  pay  the  cost  of  that. 
Poor  public,  suffering  all  the  time!  It  i» 
one  of  the  things  that  you  can  not  help. 
If  you  are  oppressed  in  one  direction,  and 
the  price  has  to  go  up,  the  public  is  the 
forgotten  man;  but  there  is  where  it  falls 
all  the  time.  The  consumer  pays  for  it. 
And  those  of  us  who  stand  up  to  protect 
the  consumer,  who  represents  the  average 
man  in  the  community,  are  always  to  b« 
treated  as  merciless,  tyrannical  men. 

That  brings  me  to  say  one  word  in  de- 
fense of  our  own  companies.  I submit 
that  in  the  long  months  you  have  taken 
testimony  the  companies  1 represent,  the 
Philadelphia  and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron 
company  and  I.ehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre 
Coal  company,  have  suffered  the  most  at 
the  hands  of  these  people,  in  that,  as  I 
have  told  you,  a number  of  our  collieries 
are  destroyed.  Where  is  the  evidence  of 
Our  wrong-doing?  What  have  we  done? 
Have  we  ill-treated  our  men?  Have  we 
wronged  them  in  any  way?  Is  there  any 
testimony  here  to  cast  a shadow  of  doubt 
on  the  integrity  and  the  honesty  and  the 
fairness  of  these  companies,  in  dealing 
with  their  men?  I want  to  know  if  there 
can  he  found  anywhere  in  this  land  more 
upright  men  than  Luther,  than  John 
Veith,  than  Richards?  And  I want  to 
know  who,  among  all  the  hundred  of  su- 
perintendents, has  been  pointed  out  to 
you  as  dealing  unjustly  or  unfairly  with 
any  employe  of  the  companies  I repre- 
sent; or  who  is  there  that  will  dare  to 
say  or  has  said  that  the  humblest  man  in 
our  employment  has  been  refused  redress 
or  consideration  of  any  complaint. 

Superintendents  tell  you  that  they  hear 
every  complaint  and  treat  it  justly.  Such 
is  their  instruction.  This  company  is  too 
big  to  be  dishonest.  It  means  to  deal 
fairly  with  all  men.  It  means  it  because 
its  management  is  honest  and  its  policy 
is  honest.  And  I protest  that  nothing 
has  been  more  unfair  than  to  drag  us 
here  into  a controversy  of  this  kind, 
without  showing  that  there  was  any 
wrong  done,  or  that  anything  in  our  sys- 
tem needed  to  be  corrected.  With  fair 
ness  they  admitted  that,  the  outcry 
against  payment  for  coal  by  the  car  did 
not  apply  to  our  region ; and  I thank  them 
for  being  big  enough  to  admit  that  the 
conditions  under  which  we  pay  in  the 
Schuylkill  regions  are  so  fair  and  just 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


that  they  do  not  desire  to  change  them. 
It  eliminates,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
one  troublesome  problem  from  your  con 
sideration. 

Proposes  Sliding  Scale. 

Now,  then,  what  is  the  practical  sugges- 
tion that  I have  to  maKe?  I would  glad- 
ly see  a return  to  the  sliding  scale.  For 
some  reason  or  other  the  sliding  scale 
meets  with  little  favor  among  labor  lead- 
ers. I have  a theorv  about  that,  but  it 
may  be  mistaken,  and  I will  not  state  it. 
You  are  asked  to  fix  the  price  of  coal 
practically  for  three  years.  I am  not  a 
prophet.  I do  not  Know  what  the  busi- 
ness conditions  of  the  next  three  years 
will  be. 

I can  hope  that  the  general  prosperity 
of  the  country  will  continue  so  that  wages 
can  be  even  increased.  But  I do  not  know 
the  future,  and  as  a business  man  I am 
not  willing  to  bind  myself  to  the  payment 
of  wages  for  three  years  based  upon  the 
existing  condition  of  things.  1 do  not  know 
the  day,  nor  the  hour  when  a break  may 
come  and,  as  a cautious  man  of  the  world 
charged  with  grave  responsibilities,  I 
want  some  system  adopted  that  will  work 
like  the  governor  on  an  engine  and  regu- 
late the  speed  at  which  we  go.  Normally 
there  ought  to  he  no  increase  of  wages. 
During  the  last  few  months  we  have  ad- 
vanced the  price  of  coal  and  then  only  for 
a temporary  purpose  until  normal  condi- 
tions would  he  reached.  I do  not  know 
whether  they  are  here  or  not.  There  are 
sounds  from  afar  that  are  quite  threaten- 
ing. I do  not  like  the  suggestion  that  in 
January,  taking  all  sizes  of  coal,  there 
were  nearly  six  million  tons  of  anthracite 
coal  produced.  I want  to  say,  that  while 
It  is  entirely  true  that  some  of  the  men 
have  not  been  as  prompt  as  we  wished 
them  in  working  on  holidays,  and  some 
of  them  have  shut  down  the  breakers  at 
one  colliery  and  another  to  go  to  a fu- 
neral, and  sometimes  in  times  of  great 
distress  they  would  not  work  when  we 
thought  they  ought  to  work,  I will  say, 
that  taking  the  whole  situation  through 
the  men  in  our  companies  have  behaved 
themselves  since  the  strike  is  over  most 
admirably.  They  have  rendered  efficient 
work  and  produced  all  the  coal  which, 
ujider  the  circumstances,  couia  be  pro- 
duced, unless  they  had  worked  on  these 
exceptional  holidays,  and  while  that 
would  have  been  desirable,  you  cannot 
ignore  the  conditions  and  the  traditions 
of  people,  and  if  these  foreigners  come 
here  with  many  holidays  and  have  been 
accustomed  to  observe  ail  thetr  holidays,  i 
am  not  going  to  find  fault  with  a man 
who  keeps  his  native  holiday  even  though 
it  does  deprive  me  of  a little  coal.  There 
are  some  things  that  must  be  allowed  to 
individual  freedom,  and  this  is  one  of 
them.  I would  have  them  work  on  Mitch- 
el  day  when  there  was  a scarcity  of 
coal,  because  he  is  alive.  He  could 
wait  for  all  those  honors  in  the  future. 
(Laughter). 

Now,  what  is  my  proposition?  That 
the  rate  of  wages  now  paid  shall  be  the 
minimum  basis  for  the  next  three  years. 

That  from  the  first  of  November  to  the 
first  of  April,  1903,  all  employes,  otner 
than  contract  miners,  snail  he  paid  an 
additional  5 per  cent. 

That  on  and  after  April,  1903,  for  each 
five  cents  in  excess  of  $4.00  per  ton  on  the 
average  price  realized  for  white  ash  coal 
in  the  harbor  of  New  York,  on  all  sizes 
above  pea,  wages  shall  be  advanced  one 
per  cent. ; the  wages  to  rise  or  fall  one  per 
cent,  for  each  live  cents  increase  or  dc- 


239 

crease  in  prices;  but  they  shall  never  fall 
during  the  next  three  years  below  the 
present  basis. 

What  This  Would  Mean. 

Now,  before  I give  the  result,  let  me 
just  explain  what  that  means.  We  will 
take  the  risk  of  guaranteeing  for  thres 
years  the  present  basis  of  wages.  I say 
risk.  We  take  a great  risk  in  doing  that. 
It  means  that  the  price  of  coal  must  be 
kept  in  New  York  harbor  S4.5P,  or  other- 
wise we  are  carrying  on  operations  at  a 
loss.  We  are  wiling  to  take  that  risk 
and  pay,  in  addition,  one  per  cent,  in- 
crease in  wages  for  each  nve  cents  In- 
crease on  coal,  taking  the  prices  at  New 
York  harbor,  which  eliminates  all  calcu- 
lations, as  a basis. 

The  average  price  for  each  region  to 
be  ascertained  by  a competent  account- 
ant, to  be  appointed  by  Judge  Gray, 
chairman  of  the  commission,  or,  in  case, 
for  any  reason,  Judge  Gray  cannot  act! 
then  by  one  of  +he  United  States  circuit 
judges  holding  courts  in  the  city  of  Phil- 
adelphia. The  compensation  of  the  ac- 
countant to  he  fixed  by  the  judge  making 
the  appointment,  and  to  be  paid  by  the 
operators  in  proportion  to  the  tonnage 
of  each  mine;  each  operator  to  submit"^ 
full  statement  each  month  to  said  ac- 
countant of  all  the  sales  ol  white  ash 
coal,  and  the  prices  realized  therefrom 
free  on  board  New  York,  with  the  rignt 
of  the  accountant  to  have  access  to  the 
books  to  verify  the  statement 

That  is,  if  the  present  price  of  coal 
could  be  maintained  at  five  dollars  in 
New  York  harbor,  it  would  mean  an  ad- 
vance flat  of  ten  per  cent,  on  the  present 
basis  of  wages. 

In  Conclusion. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  commission,  I 
am  afraid  I have  wearied  you  with  un- 
necessary talk.  In  conclusion,  I can  only 
say  we  have  not  evaded  the  responsibility 
of  our  several  positions.  It  may  be.  as 
was  hinted,  and  as  my  friend,  Mr.  Dar- 
row,  told  me  he  would  demonstrate,  that 
the  management  of  the  business  was 
reckless. 

Mr.  Darrow;  Not  reckless. 

Mr.  Baer:  What  was  the  word,  im- 
provident? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Not  well  organized. 

Mr.  Baer;  Was  badly  managed.  It  is 
entirely  possible  that  all  these  things  may 
be  heaped  upon  our  head,  and  it  is  en- 
tirely possible  that  a new  order  of  mm 
could  create  a new  order  of  things. 

By  the  way,  I was  thinking,  the  other 
day,  of  the  experiments  that  have  been 
tried  in  Australia,  thereby  showing  how 
England  has  saved  herself  from  the  hom-' 
annoyance  that  might  arise  from  such 
experiments  being  made  in  a settled  coun- 
try like  England.  I have  thought  that 
some  of  us  might  reconcile  ourselv,  s, 
through  our  chairman's  participation  in 
the  acquisition  of  the  Philippines,  if  this 
commission  would  induce  the  president 
of  the  United  States  to  make  si  m 
vision  whereby,  on  terms  like  those  that 
Sancho  Panzo  claimed  when  he  was 
promised  the  government  of  an  island, 
some  of  these  socialiistic  experimenter  ! 
who  see  new  ways  for  doing  old  things! 
might  be  sent  there  and  given  the  gov- 
ernment of  an  island,  with  the  power  to 
invent  a social  scheme  of  their  own. 
They  would  not  be  interfered  with  much 
in  the  Philippines,  and  it  would  be  such 
a grand  missionary  enterprise  and  would 
relieve  this  country  of  a congested  popu- 
lation that  would  certainly  be  a rel.ef 
to  us.  (Laughter.) 


240 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


But,  if  that  cannot  be  done,  we  will 
still  have  to  worry  along  with  the  nu- 
merous people  who  want  to  give  us  good 
advice  but  do  not  know  how  to  do  things 
themselves. 

For  the  time  being,  we  have  surren- 


dered, not  to  the  Mine  Workers,  but  to 
this  commission,  our  reasonable,  right- 
ful control  of  the  complicated  business 
we  are  managing.  We  have  given  you  all 
the  information  we  possess.  We  stand 
ready  still  to  respond  to  any  call  you 


may  make  upon  us.  The  responsibility  is 
now  upon  you.  I know,  from  long  ex- 
perience, the  weight  of  such  responsi- 
bility. I do  not  envy  you,  but  I have 
confidence  in  the  justice  of  your  de- 
cision. (.Applause.) 


Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Feb.  \A. 

[From  The  Scranton  Tribune,  Feb  16.] 


Philidelphia,  Feb.  13. — The  anthracite 
coal  strike  commission,  after  being  in 
public  session  for  more  than  three 
months,  closed  its  open  hearings  today 
with  an  all-day  argument  by  Clarence 
S.  Darrow  in  behalf  of  the  miners.  The 
commission  will  meet  in  secret  in 
Washington  next  Thursday,  and  begin 
the  consideration  of  its  award.  It  is 
expected  that  by  the  end  of  this  month 
the  arbitrators  will  be  ready  to  make 
their  announcement.  If  an  increase  in 
wages  is  determined  upon,  the  increase 
is  to  date  from  the  first  of  last  Novem- 
ber, the  commission  having  decided  on 
that  date  on  October  31.  After  the  ses- 
sion today  the  commission  held  a short 
conference  with  the  lawyers  for  the  sev- 
eral sides  and  asked  them  to  hold 
themselves  in  readiness  in  case  they  are 
called  upon  by  the  commission. 

The  crowd  that  heard  Mr.  Darrow 
today  was  fully  as  great  as  that  which 
listened  to  Mr.  Baer  and  Mr.  Darrow 
yesterday.  He  took  up  the  entire  time 
of  both  sessions — five  and  one-half 
hours.  He  touched  upon  almost  every 
phase  of  the  strike,  and  when  he  clos- 
ed he  was  greeted  with  long  applause 
which  Chairman  Gray  did  not  suppress. 
President  Mitchell  was  in  court  all  day, 
but  did  not  have  anything  to  say  to 
the  commission  in  parting. 

Following  is  a complete  stenographic 
report  of  Mr.  Darrow’s  address: 


THE  ADDRESS  OE 

ATTORNEY  DARROW 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  The 

time  allotted  to  me  in  closing  this  case  is 
so  short— only  a day  and  a half— that  the 
commission  will  have  to  pardon  me  fcr 
not  entering  into  any  extensive  eulogiums 
on  the  commission,  much  as  I would  like 
to,  and  sincerely  as  I feel  that  they  are 
deserved.  I am  obliged,  in  the  Western 
slang  to  “saw  wood”  and  cannot  waste 
very  much  time  on  questions  of  this  sort. 

However,  we  are  glad  that  this  hearing 
is  drawing  to  a close,  and  we  can  say 
sincerely  that  we  feel  everybody  has  been 
well  treated  so  far, whatever  you  may  do 
to  us  after  we  have  gone  away.  But  so 
long  as  we  are  all  here,  and  oa*h  keep 
watch  of  what  is  going  on,  we  feel  as  if 
we  had  been  well  treated. 

The  commission,  of  course,  has  been 
very  patient.  Everybody  has  been  ve  y 
patient.  The  commission,  I suppose,  will 
appreciate  how  difficult  it  has  been  fcr 
us  to  arrange  and  sort  out  our  evidence 
and  present  it  in  the  best  possible  way, 
with  the  least  possible  waste  of  time  and 
strength.  We  have  appreciated  It  from 
the  beginning.  I feel  that  our  thanks 
are  not  only  due  to  the  commission,  but 
to  others  who  have  been  associated  with 
It.  especially  Doctor  Neill,  who  has  done 
perhaps  more  than  anyone  else,  not  even 


excepting  the  commission,  to  see  that  we 
got  at  a fair  basis  for  all  of  these  ca  - 
culations,  and  whose  task  has  been 
greater  than  I would  like  to  have  under- 
taken, and  who  has  discharged  it,  it 
seems  to  me,  w'ith  perfect  impartiality. 

I ought,  personally,  to  show  my  appre- 
ciation of  my  brethren  of  the  East,  who 
have  treated  me,  from  the  West,  so 
kindly,  feeling,  as  I did,  that  anythirg 
from  Chicago,  and  especially  mysef, 
might  be  met  with  some  doubt  and  un- 
certainty in  this  region  of  the  country. 
T have  certainly  enjoyed  their  society  and 
I trust  they  have  not  found  me  moie 
ti  actable  than  they  expected. 

I scarcefy  know  what  to  say  in  opening 
this  case.  We  have  spent  a long  time  in 
examining  this  evidence  and  bringing  it 
before  this  tribunal.  It  was  the  result 
of  a long  and  bitter  strife,  a strife  in 
which  men  on  both  sides  were  turned 
into  wild  beasts  and  forgot  that  common 
sympathy  and  common  humanity  which, 
after  all,  is  common  to  all  men  when 
they  are  approached  from  the  human 
standpoint  and  the  human  side.  Th  s 
hearing,  coming  after  this  long  and  bit- 
ter siege,  looked  to  me  from  afar  as  if 
it  would  be  bitter,  too.  I felt,  as  I came 
here  and  felt  as  I was  coming  here,  that 
I would  do  all  in  my  power  to  make  the 
feeling  less  bitter  than  it  was.  I fe  t 
that  I did  not  wish  to  go  away  from  this 
region  and  feel  that  I had  helped  to  stir 
up  dissension  rather  than  cure  it,  he’p 
increase  this  feeling  of  bitterness  a.  d 
hatred  between  two  rival  parties,  in- 
stead of  bringing  them  closer  together, 
so  that  they  might  live  together  in  that 
peace  and  harmony  in  which  it  was 
meant  that  all  men  should  dwell  to- 
gether on  earth. 

Not  Criminals.  • 

But  I find  myself,  just  at  the  closing, 
in  a position  where  I have  to  take  very 
good  care  that  all  my  good  resolutioi  s 
do  not  go  for  naught,  and  I shall  take 
the  best  care  I can.  I have  listened  for 
nearly  three  days  to  the  arguments  of 
counsel  for  the  operators,  not  all  argu- 
ments, much  that  is  argument,  much 
that  is  vituperation,  much  that  Is  abuse, 
much  that  is  bitterness,  much  that  is 
hatred,  much  that  should  not  have  been 
spoken  here,  much  that  could  not  have 
come  from  a brain  which  sees  widely  and 
largely  and  understands  fully  the  acts  if 
men.  I have  heard  my  clients,  one  hur- 
dled and  forty-seven  thousand  working- 
men,  who  toil  while  other  men  grow  rich, 
men  who  go  down  into  the  earth  ai  d 
face  greater  dangers  than  men  who  go 
out  upon  the  sea,  or  out  upon  the  land  in 
tattle,  men  who  have  little  to  hope  for, 
little  to  think  of  excepting  work— I have 
h ard  these  men  characterized  as  assas- 
sins, as  brutes,  as  criminals,  as  outlaws, 
as  unworthy  of  the  respect  of  men  and 
fit  only  for  the  condemnation  of  courts. 
I know  that  it  is  not  true.  I have  too 
much  respect  for  the  state  of  Pennsylva- 
nia. I have  too  much  respect  for  ary 
body  of  my  fellow  men,  wherever  they 
live,  to  believe  that  any  great  mass  of 


them  have  turned  into  criminals  and  cut- 
throats, excepting  for  some  cause  that 
drives  them  to  it.  These  are  men,  mi  n 
like  any  others,  men  who,  in  the  midst 
of  sorrow,  travail  and  a severe  and  cruel 
crisis,  demeaned  themselves  as  nobly,  as 
bravely,  as  loyally,  as  any  body  of  men 
whoever  lived  and  suffered  and  died  for 
the  benefit  of  the  generations  that  are 
yet  to  come.  I shall  apologize  for  none 
of  their  mistakes,  and  excuse  none  of 
their  misdeeds.  But  I do  say,  it  does  m t 
come  from  their  accusers  to  call  them 
criminals,  and  I cannot  refrain,  in  sprak- 
ing  of  a long  series  of  causes  which 
brought  about  these  dire  results,  from 
characterizing  some  of  these  acts  in  such 
plain  English  as  would  be  applied  to  my 
clients  if  they  were  in  this  court,  as 
they  are,  and  were  being  charged  with 
some  of  the  many  offenses  that  can  le 
laid  to  the  doors  of  the  operator. 

First,  how  does  this  case  stand?  We 
have  had  a six  months'  strike.  We  have 
had  a three  months’  arbitration.  We 
have  had  a condition  in  Pennsylvania 
where  man  was  set  against  man.  family 
against  family,  class  against  class.  We 
have  had  a body  of  wealthy  and  re- 
spected gentlemen— men  who  understi  od 
the  English  language  and  knew  how  to 
use  it,  men  who  were  neither  foreigners, 
nor  criminals,  men  who  were  not  even 
doctrinaires,  or  dreamers,  but  practical 
business,  sensible  men,  men  who  stoed 
against  the  tide  of  progress  and  who 
boldly  said  to  those  in  their  employ,  we 
will  do  nothing,  we  will  pay  you  ro 
higher  wages,  we  will  not  submit  your 
disputes  to  any  body  of  men.  either  secu- 
lar or  clerical,  we  will  post  our  notice  s 
upon  our  doors  and  that  shall  be  your 
contract.  We  give  you  notice  that  f r 
one  year  your  wages  are  so  and  so,  and 
that  is  all. 

We  have  seen,  as  a consequence  of  this 
act,  one  hundred  and  forty-seven  thous- 
and men  lay  down  their  tools  of  trade, 
and  we  have  seen  seven  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  men,  women  and  children 
reduced  to  want  and  starvation  for  six 
long  months.  We  have  seen  the  president 
of  the  United  States  appoint  this  com- 
mission to  settle  this  difficulty  and  then, 
this  afternoon,  in  the  last  hour  of  this 
proceeding,  the  man  more  responsible 
than  any  other,  comes  before  this  com- 
mission and  says — ah.  we  will  consent  to 
a portion  of  the  demands  you  made,  we 
will  raise  your  wages,  we  will  do  some- 
thing. we  will  recognize  your  union,  we 
will  treat  with  your  agents,  we  will  do 
exactly  that  which  these  men  demand  d 
nine  months  before,  and  which  they  in 
their  blindness,  their  ignorance  and  their 
stupidity  refused. 

Says  Baer  Was  Tardy. 

Why  did  not  Mr.  Baer  go  to  Mr.  John 
Mitchell  nine  months  ago,  as  he  came  to 
this  commission  today?  Why  did  not 
Major  Warren  and  Mr.  Torrey  and  th 
other  counsel  in  this  case  go  to  this  band 
of  criminals  nine  months  ago  and  say 
they  would  meet  their  agents  and  nego- 
tiate and  talk  with  them?  Why  was  all 


of  this  deferred  until  seven  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  men,  women  and  children 
were  brought  to  the  verge  of  starvation 
and  this  country  was  facing  the  most 
terrible  fuel  calamity  it  has  ever  known? 
Yet  we  are  met  here  today,  and  in  the 
last  two  or  three  days,  by  these  gentle- 
men, who  all  these  long  and  weary 
months  have  refused  to  know  us,  to  re- 
cognize us,  have  demanded  as  a condi- 
tion that  these  men  must  give  up  the  r 
union,  dearer  to  them  than  their  bread, 
for  it  is  their  bread  and  their  life  as  we  1 
—that  they  must  give  up  their  organiza- 
tion and  must  come  to  them  with  their 
hat  in  their  hand,  each  one  in  a position 
to  be  discharged  the  next  moment  if 
they  dare  to  raise  their  voice.  This  is 
the  condition  in  which  we  have  met 
today. 

This  case  has  been  discussed  by  lawyer 
after  lawyer.  It  has  been  discussed,  to 
my  mind,  without  bringing  to  this  com- 
mission any  real  analysis  that  could  sub- 
stantially help  them  in  their  determina- 
tion of  this  case. 

We  have  heard  all  sorts  of  theories  dis- 
cussed. Why,  I used  to  be  something  of 
a theorist  myself,  years  ago.  (Laughter.) 
I could  talk  to  this  commission  about 
socialism,  about  single-tax,  even  about 
religion — all  sorts  of  things  (laughter)  if 
I saw  fit  to  take  your  time  and  you  saw 
fit  to  permit  it.  We  have  been  regaled 
with  that.  My  esteemed  friend,  Major 
Warren,  has  told  us  what  he  knoY  s 
about  socialism,  or  rather,  what  he  does 
not  know  about  socialism.  (Laughter  and 
applause.)  I would  suggest  to  the  chair- 
man that  he  do  me  the  favor  to  request 
that  there  be  no  applause. 

The  Chairman:  Oh,  well,  I think  we 
shall  get  along.  (Laughter.) 

Mr.  Darrow:  It  interrupts  me;  that  is 
all. 

Now,  I am  noi  going  to  discuss  social- 
ism with  Major  Warren.  It  is  all  I can 
do  to  point  out  his  errors  in  this  case— 
to  say  nothing  about  his  errors  in  social- 
ism. I do  not  propose  to  discuss  New 
Zealand  with  Mr.  Baer,  except  to  simp  y 
suggest  that  w'hen  Mr.  Baer  tells  us  cf 
the  high  price  of  hauling  the  traffic  in 
New  Zealand,  it  seems  to  me  it  can  le 
accounted  for  only  on  two  theories.  One 
is  that  New  Zealand  is  a very  thinly 
populated  country,  and  the  other  is  that 
they  take  as  their  basis  of  freight  rates 
the  Reading  schedule  for  hauling  anthra- 
cite coal  in  this  region.  (Applause  and 
laughter.) 

The  Chairman:  Gentlemen,  the  chair 
must  request  that  you  refrain  from  ap- 
plause. The  speaker  has  just  told  me 
that  it  interrupts  and  annoys  him.  It  is 
not  because  I do  not  want  you  to  ap- 
plaud what  you  believe  in,  but  became 
it  interrupts  the  proceeding. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Either  one  of  those  rea- 
sons that  I have  stated  might  account 
for  it.  So  the  commission  may  dismiss 
it  from  their  minds. 

I have  made  up  my  mind  to  be  ver‘y 
dull  this  afternoon  and  save  my  really 
interesting  remarks  until  tomorrow'. 
(Laughter.)  For  that  reason,  it  will  be 
a little  more  difficult  to  give  attention 
this  afternoon,  and  a little  easier  to- 
morrow. Of  course,  it  follows  from  thft 
that  what  I shall  say  this  afternoon  is 
important  and  what  I shall  say  tomox- 
•row  will  not  be  so  important.  (Laughter.) 

Wandering  from  the  Text. 

Seriously,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  ca?  e 
has  not  been  discussed  by  my  friends, 
the  operators,  in  a way  to  throw  any 
true  light  upon  the  controversies  that 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


you  have  before  you.  We  are  all  ac- 
cused of  being  dreamers  on  our  side,  and 
I will  admit  for  a moment  that  I have 
always  had  a sort  of  a penchant  for  as- 
sociating with  dreamers.  I have  attended 
all  kinds  of  social  and  economic  and  re- 
ligious meetings  in  my  time,  but  I do 
not  believe  I ever  heard  a series  of 
papers  in  my  life  anywhere  that  deals  so 
much  with  abstract  questions— most  of 
them  wrong — as  that  with  which  they 
have  regaled  us  for  the  last  three  days. 
We  seem  to  have  forgotten  this  case  en- 
tirely, and  what  it  is  about,  and  why  we 
are  here,  and  what  we  are  to  settle.  I 
propose  to  let  Adam  Smith  and  all  the 
rest  of  the  patriarchs  rest  for  this  af- 
ternoon, at  least,  and  assume  that  I am 
here  in  a court  trying  a case,  where  two 
parties  have  some  substantial  matter  to 
be  settled  by  this  commission,  and  noth- 
ing else.  And  I want  to  settle  these  ques- 
tions according  to  the  rules  of  logic  and 
according  to  the  rules  of  law — so  far  as 
the  law  is  applicable  to  this  commission 
—and,  I take  it,  that  is  to  quite  an  ex- 
tent, at  least. 

A large  part  of  the  evidence  in  th  s 
case  has  no  bearing  upon  the  issues  in 
the  case.  So  far  as  the  demands  of  the 
Mine  Workers  are  concerned,  it  makes  no 
difference  whether  crimes  have  been 
committed  or  not.  If  John  Smith  earned 
$300  a year,  it  is  no  answer  to  say  that 
Tom  Jones  murdered  somebody  in  co  d 
blood.  That  does  not  relieve  you.  It  is 
no  answer  to  say  that  some  one’s  house 
was  burned.  It  is  no  answer  to  say  that 
some  person  has  been  boycotted.  The 
question  is,  what  has  he  earned?  A e 
these  men  entitled  to  more  money?  Aie 
they  entitled  to  shorter  hours?  As  rea- 
sonable human  beings,  should  we  recog- 
nize the  union,  or  should  we  run  against 
it  like  a stone  wall,  and  still  swear  that 
we  do  not  know  it  is  there?  These  aie 
the  propositions. 

As  to  Recognition. 

Gentlemen,  I can  dispose  of  that  veiy 
easily.  You  can  do  just  as  you  please 
about  recognizing  the  union.  If  you  do 
not  recognize  it,  it  is  because  you  aie 
blind  and  you  want  to  bump  up  against 
it  some  more;  that  is  all.  It  is  here.  It 
is  here  to  stay,  and  the  burden  is  on  you 
and  not  upon  us.  There  is  neither  the 
power  nor  the  disposition  in  this  court,  I 
take  it,  to  destroy  the  union.  It  wou  d 
not  accomplish  it  if  it  could,  and  it  cer- 
tainly could  not  if  it  would.  And  if  these 
wise  business  men,  with  the  combined 
wisdom  of  business  gentlemen  and  tl  e 
agents  of  the  Almighty,  can  not  see  the 
union,  they  had  better  blunder  along  still 
a few  more  years,  and.  possibly,  after- 
w'hile,  they  will  know  it  is  here  and  recog- 
nize it  themselves.  These  questions  aie 
here  to  be  discussed,  and  they  are  tl  e 
practical  issues  in  this  case. 

When  we  ask  for  wages,  they  say: 
“Oh,  no;  you  are  criminals,  and  theie- 
fore  we  should  not  raise  your  wages,’’ 
When  we  asked  for  shorter  hours,  tliev 
say:  “Oh,,  no;  you  burned  a house,  and 
therefore  you  should  work  ten  hours  in- 
stead of  eight.”  Suppose  we  were  no 
more  logical  than  these  business  gentle- 
men. We  do  not  claim  to  be  business 
men — we  are  theorists,  and  lawyers. 
When  they  refused  to  raise  our  wages, 
suppose  I say:  “No,  Mr.  Operators;  you 
are  criminals.”  I say  that  legislative 
body  after  legislative  body,  court  after 
court,  investigating  committee  after  in- 
vestigating committee  have  pronounced 
you  criminals  and  outlaws.  What  of  it? 
It  is  true;  but  what  of  it?  I say  that 


241 


you  are  carrying  on  your  business  in 
conflict  with  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of 
the  constitution  of  the  great  common- 
wealth in  which  you  live.  But  what  of 
it?  That  is  no  reason  why  you  should 
pay  us  any  more  wages  than  we  aie 
worth.  We  are  not  entitled  to  $2  for  $1. 
any  more  from  you  than  we  would  be 
from  a body  of  law-abiding  gentlemen. 
(Laughter.)  If  we  work  for  you.  it  is 
not  your  moral  character  we  are  inter- 
ested in,  it  is  you  dollars,  that  is  a 1. 
We  are  not  examining  you  to  see  how 
well  you  come  up  to  the  commandments 
of  the  Decalogue,  or  to  the  civil  law. 
We  take  you  as  we  find  you.  If  we  did 
not,  we  could  not  take  you  at  all,  ai  d 
we  only  ask  of  you  what  our  day’s 
work  is  worth. 

• One  Thing  Settled. 

This  commission  settled  this  matter 
long  ago.  When  we  intimated  to  the 
commission  to  show  that  these  gentle- 
men owned  the  railroads  and  they  owned 
the  mines,  and  were  taking  money  out 
of  one  pocket  and  putting  it  into  the 
other,  and  were  charging  exorbitant 
freight  rates  and  making  false  state- 
ments, the  commission  said,  "What  has 
that  to  do  with  the  question?”  And  they 
said  wisely.  What  has  it  got  to  do  wiih 
the  question?  These  men  who  are  en- 
gaged in  the  business  of  mining  coal,  if 
they  work  for  these  operators,  have  no 
more  right  to  demand  anything  from 
them  because  they  are  respectable  citi- 
zens, or  are  not  respectable  citizens,  than 
they  would  have  if  the  opposite  were  the 
case.  Neither  have  they  any  right  what- 
ever to  plead  to  this  organization,  or  to 
its  people,  in  answer  to  our  demand  for 
wages,  anything  whatever  about  the  kind 
of  men  they  are.  I do  not  think  it  com<  s 
with  a very  good  grace  from  these  gen- 
tlemen, neither  do  they  say  it  very 
squarely,  but  as  such  things  are  gener- 
ally said  in  this  world  by  men  who  do 
not  like  to  say  them  openly;  I do  not 
think  it  comes  with  good  grace  from 
these  gentlemen,  whose  breakers,  whose 
mines,  whose  every  dollar  is  up  there 
surrounded  by  my  clients,  whose  fami- 
lies are  living  from  the  profits  that  are 
made  from  the  work  of  my  clients  in  the 
ground,  these  men  who  have  issued  their 
bonds  and  their  stock  upon  the  lives  of 
these  despised  foreigners,  and  these  un- 
ruly boys — it  does  not  come  with  good 
grace  from  them  to  say  that  the  men 
who  have  made  them  rich  are  criminals 
and  entitled  to  no  consideration  from  this 
court.  And  yet  that  is  their  position  be- 
fore this  body.  I take  it  that  that  posi- 
tion cannot  appeal  to  reasonable  men; 
that  all  that  has  been  said  on  this  line 
is  aside  from  this  case.  It  has  been  said, 
in  order  that,  in  some  way,  they  may 
wring  a few  more  dollars  from  these  men 
who  give  their  labor  and  their  life  that 
their  bonds  may  be  greater  and  their 
stocks  more  valuable  on  the  exchange. 

We  are  here  asking  for  money,  inde- 
pendent of  any  theories  of  political  econo- 
my. We  are  here  asking  for  shorter 
hours:  and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
socialism  or  anarchism,  excepting  as 
every  demand  that  the  poor  make  from 
the  rich  is  to  be  construed  as  socialistic. 
And  in  that  far,  why  let  it  go;  we  are 
willing  to  accept  it. 

The  Question  of  Wages. 

In  discussing  this  question  of  wages, 
it  might  be  a good  idea  to  find  out  what 
we  are  getting.  What  we  are  getting 
has  something  to  do  with  whether  we 
ought  to  have  more  or  not, 


242 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


We  have  been  told  through  several  long, 
and  more  or  less  weary,  days  that  the 
miners  did  not  know  what  they  were 
getting.  Well,  they  did  not — not  if  these 
gentlemen  are  right.  These  miners,  if 
they  were  only  Christian  Scientists, 
would  be  all  right.  If  they  could  believe 
that  they  had  the  fine  houses— now,  I 
say  this  in  a popular  sense.  There  may, 
possibly,  be  some  Christian  Scientists  on 
this  commission,  I do  not  know.  (Laugh- 
ter.) But  I say  this  in  the  popular 
sense.  These  miners,  if  they  could  only 
believe  that  they  had  the  fine  houses  and 
the  money  in  the  bank,  and  the  good 
health,  and  the  long  life,  and  the  good 
school  and  church  facilities,  and  the 
great  wages  for  the  composite  men,  that 
these  gentlemen  believe,  could  be  happy, 
and  we  could  settle  this  strike.  Now,,  if, 
with  all  their  wondrous  other  achieve- 
ments, they  had  instituted  some  sort  of 
a mind  cure  to  make  their  unfortunate 
employes  sincerely  believe  their  state- 
ments, then  we  would  not  have  had  this 
trouble. 

They  say  that  Mr.  Mitchell  came  here 
from  the  soft  coal  region  and  did  not 
know  what  the  men  were  getting,  ar.d 
the  men  themselves  did  not  know.  Now, 
I insist  that  the  operators  do  not  know. 
If  they  do,  then  they  have  sought  to  de- 
ceive this  commission,  to  becloud  these 
issues;  to  cheat  and  defraud  this  half 
million  people  who  are  dependent  upon 
the  bounty  that  these  operators  see  fit 
to  shower  upon  the  anthracite  regions. 
If  these  miners  are  receiving  such  wages 
as  gentlemen  have  told  us  of,  well  and 
good.  Just  let  us  go  home  and  enjoy 
them,  and  we  will  say  no  more  about  it. 

Now,  the  operators  are  smarter  men 
then  we  are.  They  say  so;  and  we  wi  1 
admit  it,  and  save  any  proof  on  that 
question.  (Laughter.)  They  have  got  all 
sorts  of  advantages  of  us.  Their  social 
advantages  are  better,  their  religious 
privileges  are  better,  they  speak  tl  e 
English  language  better.  They  are  not 
children.  They  can  hire  good  lawyers 
and  expert  accountants,  and  they  have 
got  the  advantage  of  us  in  almost  every 
particular;  and  we  will  admit  all  that. 

The  Chairman:  Except  the  lawyers? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Oh,  they  have  got  the 
advantage  there.  (Laughter.)  We  are 
not  worrying  so  much  about  the  lawyers 
as  we  are  about  the.  commission.  (Laugh- 
ter.) 

A Matter  of  Bookkeeping. 

Now,  these  fellow's  keep  books.  Our 
men  do  not  keep  books.  It  has  hardly 
been  worth  while.  (Laughter.)  There 
is  not  a miner  in  the  whole  region  that 
can  hire  an  expert  accountant.  It  is  all 
they  can  do,  when  they  combine  their 
147.000  men.  to  hire  an  expert  accountant. 
They  have  the  books  in  which  they  put 
down  to  every  man  how  much  he  got  or 
how  much  he  was  supposed  to  have  re- 
ceived, or  how  much  they  say  that  they 
think  perhaps  he  got,  how  much  they 
thmk  somebody  else  working  the  same 
length  of  time,  or  longer,  in  some  other 
position  might  possibly  have  gotten  if  he 
had  worked  so  many  days  more.  (Laugh- 
ter.) They  have  the  books  there  to  show 
it,  and  those  books  have  been  brought  be- 
fore this  commission,  and  every  one  has 
given  his  guess  about  them,  before  they 
came  and  after  they  came. 

I am  not  here  to  say  that  these  eminent 
gentlemen  are  not  as  good  as  other  men, 
are  not  as  kindly  as  other  men,  are  not 
as  just  as  other  men.  I think  they  have 
been  deceived.  They  have  been  deceived 
by  their  expert  accountants;  they  have 


been  deceived  by  their  doctors — doctors  of 
figures  (laughter),  doctors  who  have  doc- 
tored up  figures.  They  have  doctored 
them  up,  not  only  so  that  they  might  de- 
ceive us,  but  so  that  they  have  deceived 
them  And  when  Mr.  Baer  informed  the 
senators  of  this  state  and  informed  the 
president  of  the  United  States,  and  in- 
formed this  commission  of  how  much 
wages  his  men  were  getting,  he  gave 
them  at  least  30,  or  40.  or  50  per  cent, 
beyond  any  facts  that  really  existed. 

If,  at  the  end  of  all  this  time  ar.d 
labor,  he  is  willing  to  give  us  5 or  lQ^ner 
cent,  upon  the  figures  that  he  says  cor- 
rectly represent  our  earnings,  we  will  be 
very  glad  indeed  to  take  it.  We  will  be 
very  glad  to  take  a finding  of  this  com- 
mission, just  as  he  gave  it,  based  upon 
the  figures  that  he  gave  to  Mr.  Wright, 
and  that  are  contained  in  this  book,  and 
we  will  ask  no  more  questions,  and 
make  no  more  demands.  From  the  be- 
ginning of  this  strike  until  the  end, 
whatever  you  may  say  about  whether  the 
miners  know  what  they  were  getting  or 
not,  these  operators  have  never  given  out 
a correct  figure  or  made  a statement 
that  would  stand  the  light  of  day  for  a 
single  moment  when  they  talked  to  the 
public. 

Now,  in  this  I do  not  mean  to  make 
any  general  onslaught  upon  the  figures 
as  they  have  been  finally  brought  before 
this  commission.  I do  not  mean  to  make 
any  general  charge  against  the  real  fig- 
ures of  real,  living,  flesh-and-blood  men 
that  this  commission,  through  the  assist- 
ance of  Mr.  Neill,  compelled  them  to  give 
to  this  commission.  It  is  not  the  real 
men  I am  quarrelling  with;  it  is  the 
composite  man,  the  imaginary  man.  the 
imaginary  figure— all  of  these  matters 
that  have  been  used  by  the  expert  ac- 
countants of  these  gentlemen  in  order  to 
deceive  somebody. 

Now,  what  are  these  men  getting?  I 
have  promised  to  be  dull,  and  now  I am 
going  to  keep  my  word.  Let  us  see. 

Based  on  1901  Earnings. 

In  the  first  place,  every  figure  that  these 
gentlemen  have  given  us  has  been  based 
upon  1901— every  figure.  The  production 
of  coal  in  1901  was  twelve  per  cent, 
greater  per  man  than  for  the  average  of 
the  ten  years  preceding  the  year  1901- 
twelve  per  cent.  The  payment  of  coal  is 
made  by  the  ton,  by  the  car,  by  the  yard, 
and  by  the  day.  I assume  that  this  com- 
mission, in  their  finding,  will  base  their 
finding  upon  some  payment  of  this  sort. 
If  this  is  true,  then  they  will  not  be 
based  upon  the  figures  of  1901,  but  upon 
a reasonable,  probable  average,  covering 
such  a series  of  years  as  this  commission 
thinks  is  wise  and  just.  This  commis- 
sion, I take  it,  will  not  say  that  twenty 
per  cent.,  for  instance;  or  fifteen  per 
cent.,  or  ten  per  cent.,  or  any  other  per 
cent,  shall  be  added  to  the  gross  wages 
of  1901:  but  that  whatever  per  cent,  thi  y 
fix  (and  everybody  seems  to  admit  at 
last  that  they  will  fix  something:  almost 
everybody  in  the  commission  has  said  sol. 
will  be  based  upon  the  rates,  so  muih 
per  ton.  per  yard,  per  car.  So  the  pro- 
duction has  nothing  whatever  to  do  wi  h 
it,  excepting  to  show  that  thev  earned 
more  money  in  1901  than  they  can  reason- 
ably be  expected  to  get  again.  Now.  is 
there  any  question  about  that? 

So  much  of  this  is  in  your  favor. 
Everything  seems  to  conspire  together 
for  the  lucky  man.  The  fellow  who  h s 
got  money,  of  course  is  lucky:  we  all 
know  it,  for  we  are  all  after  it.  (Laugh- 
ter.) And  so  this  demand  and  this  show- 


ing of  these  gentlemen  is  made  upon  the 
highest  year  in  the  history  of  the  anthra- 
cite business,  1901,  when  every  figure 
submitted  is  twelve  per  cent,  higher  than 
for  the  average  of  ten  years.  I simply 
call  the  attention  of  the  commission  to 
that,  that  in  considering  every  figure  in 
this  case  they  will  consider  that  it  is 
twelve  per  cent,  higher  than  the  normal 
year. 

We  have  heard,  from  Mr.  Baer  and 
others,  that  there  are  ominous  mutterings 
In  the  field  of  business.  These  ominous 
mutterings  amount  almost  to  an  earth- 
quake, according  to  Mr.  Baer.  It  needs 
nothing  to  shake  down  the  unsubstantial 
fabric  of  our  civilization,  and  to  make 
It  all  fall  about  our  heads,  except  to 
raise  the  wages  in  the  anthracite  region; 
and  then  civilization  is  doomed  for  an- 
other eon  of  ages,  at  least.  A shortening 
of  hours,  a raising  of  wages,  a changing 
of  conditions,  and  all  that  we  have 
striven  for  and  toiled  for  is  lost,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Baer. 

These  ominous  mutterings  are  every- 
where present,  especially  in  this  court 
room,  when  we  are  suggesting  that  wages 
be  raised.  A suggestion  like  that  has 
always  been  considered  an  ominous  mut- 
tering, no  matter  where  it  was  or  when 
it  was,,  or  who  it  was  that  made  it.  And 
history  is  repeating  itself  over  and  over 
again  with  every  employer  and  evei  y 
employe  who  ever  lived. 

But  what  have  these  gentlemen  been 
getting  in  1901?  Now,  let  us  see. 

Learning  About  Mining. 

I know  a little  more  about  mining  than 
I did  when  I came  down  here,  although 
I do  not  know  as  much  about  it  tocav  ; s 
I thought  I did  when  I landed  in  Scran- 
ton. (Laughter.) 

I have  learned  that  many  things  that 
the  gentlemen  say  on  the  other  side  aie 
true,  strange  as  it  may  seem.  Condi- 
tions are  various.  Tour  function  is  n t 
an  easy  one,  I will  admit  that  at  once. 
To  bring  peace  and  harmony,  and  justice 
and  equality  out  of  this  whole  region  is 
not  easy.  Of  course,  nothing  but  my 
intimate  acquaintance  with  you  gent  e- 
men  would  make  me  believe  for  a mo- 
ment that  you  would  fully  accomplish  it 
at  one  sitting.  There  are  scarcely  two 
men  in  the  whole  region  who  .get  the 
same  wages,  as  you  all  know.  There  aie 
one  hundred  and  forty-seven  thousand 
men  and  boys  employed.  There  are.  per- 
haps, fifteen  or  twenty  thousand  different 
rates  of  wages.  It  would  be  an  ease 
thing  to  call  a commission  to  settle  the 
difficulty.  A settlement  of  this  dlffieu  ty 
is  something  as  if  they  would  appoint  a 
commission  to  go  and  settle  the  wages 
of  everybody  in  Philadelphia,  for  in- 
stance. All  right.  I am  not  finding  fault 
with  it.  I do  not  see  what  else  we  could 
do,  but  still  it  is  not  an  easy  task,  and 
when  we  are  all  done  and  through  wi.h 
it.  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  it  can  be 
exactly  just,  and  we  expect  that  in  ad- 
vance, although  we  trust  that  m at  of 
the  injustice  will  be  such  as  the  other 
side  will  have  to  complain  of. 

But,  let  us  see.  as  near  as  we  can, 
what  these  gentlemen  were  getting.  Mr 
Baer  and  his  first  lieutenant,  Mr.  Veith, 
do  not  seem  to  quite  agree.  I have  a 
very  high  opinion  of  Mr.  Veith  and  that 
opinion,  taken  in  connection  with  Mr. 
Baer's  euloglum  upon  his  chief  lleut<  n- 
ant.  leads  me  to  think  that  Mr.  Veith  a 
right,  and  Mr.  Baer  Is  wrong,  so  he  will 
pardon  me  if  I take  Mr.  Veith.  Instead  of 
himself,  in  these  matters,  to  ascertain 
how  much  Mr.  Baer  Is  paying  and  how 


much  work  he  is  getting.  I am  going  to 
be  governed  by  him,  and  by  their  books, 
and  not  by  the  eminent  gentleman  whom 
they  put  on  the  stand,  and  who  caused 
me  for  the  first,  and  I trust  for  the  only 
time,  to  lose  my  temper  in  this  case,  who 
fixed  up  the  diet  of  pig  iron  and  raw  jute 
and  carbolic  acid  for  the  miners  to  live 
on,  which  is  a very  good  diet  for  his 
composite  man.  (Laughter.)  But  It  is  no 
good  for  mining  coal.  A composite  man 
has  got  to  dig  coal  or  he  cannot  even 
stay  on  the  payrolls  of  an  expert  ac- 
countant. 

Mining  Eequires  Skill. 

Who  are  these  gentlemen?  I am  a 
little  slow  in  getting  to  the  point,  as  the 
commission  will  observe,  because  there 
are  so  many  circumstances  that  seem  to 
pop  in  ahead  of  the  real  point  I am  at. 
Mr.  Baer  seems  to  think  anybody  can 
mine  coal.  He  seems  to  think  it  is  as 
easy  a job  to  be  a coal  miner  as  it  is  to 
be  the  president  of  a railroad  company, 
or  a lawyer.  A man  can  take  the  evi- 
dence in  this  case  in  his  office,  and  never 
come  into  court  until  it  is  too  late  to  put 
him  on  the  witness  stand,  and  he  knows 
all  about  it,  and  anybody  can  mine  coa', 
and  these  fellows  are  common  laborers. 

Now,  what  does  Mr.  Veith  say?  I 
take  it,  Mr.  Baer  never  mined  coal,  al- 
though the  fact  he  once  worked  for  fifty 
dollars  a year  might  seem  to  indicate  he 
Was  mining  coal.  (Laughter.)  He  did 
not  tell  us  what  he  was  doing.  Mr.  Baer  » 
informed  the  country,  when  he  was  tel  - 
ing  it,  what  a bad  set  of  men  the  miners 
were  and  what  an  unreasonable  demard 
they  had  made,  that  the  miner  went  into 
the  ground  and  he  stayed  there  from 
four  to  six  hours,  and  he  got  out  at  11 
o’clock  in  the  morning,  and  he  told  ths 
commission  the  same  things,  except  that 
he  raised  it  an  hour,  he  said  from  five 
to  six.  Of  course,  he  was  a little  more . 
cautious  when  he  came  before  the  com- 
mission than  he  was  when  he  went  be- 
fore the  country.  I am  quoting,  now. 
from  the  statement  in  the  book  of  the 
Reading  company.  He  said  these  gentle- 
men worked  from  four  to  six  hours.  Mr. 
Veith  said  that  the  men  in  his  employ, 
the  miners,  worked  from  six  to  seven.  I 
take  it  that  Mr.  Veith  knew  and  that 
he  had  failed  to  communicate  his  knowl- 
edge to  Mr.  Baer,  and  that  Mr.  Baer,  in 
some  mysterious  way,  had  seen  fit  to 
give  this  out  to  the  country  without  ever 
asking  his  chief  lieutenant  anything 
about  the  facts  of  the  case.  I think 
probably  six  to  seven  is  long  enough  to 
stay  down  underground. 

But  Mr.  Baer  says  it  does  not  take 
skilled  labor.  Anybody,  almost,  can  te 
a miner — it  takes  nothing  except  a pick 
and  a reckless  disposition.  You  might 
get  along  without  the  pick,  (laughter) 
but  I do  not  see  how  you  could  get 
along  without  the  other,  unless  you  are 
horribly  hungry.  But  Mr.  Veith  sa?  s 
that  it  takes  three  or  four  years’  ex- 
perience to  be  a good  miner.  These  gen- 
tlemen who  have  performed  eminent  ser- 
vices in  the  way  of  expert  figures,  have 
laid  all  the  stress  upon  the  contract 
miner,  men  who  are  skilled  workmen, 
men  who  work  longer  to  be  a contract 
miner  than  they  would  to  be  a carpen- 
ter, or  a bricklayer,  or  a lawyer,'  a 
mighty  sight  harder,  and,  I guess,  as  a 
clergyman,  although  1 am  not  so  well 
acquainted  with  that  business.  Three 
to  four  years,  and  they  worked  in  the 
ground,  where  six  out  of  a thousand  are 
killed  every  year,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
healthfulness  of  the  occupation,  which 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


they  can  get  doctors  by  the  score  to 
swear  to,  Just  the  same  as  an  account- 
ant. But  six  out  of  a thousand  die. 
Miners  are  not  very  good  figurers.  They 
do  not  think  about  it.  If  they  were 
going  into  war  and  knew  that  when  they 
went  in  that  six  out  of  a thousand  wou  d 
be  killed  in  a year,  they  would  hesitate. 
They  might  figure  how  long  a life  they 
would  probably  have  and  what  sort  of  a 
death  they  would  meet,  but  they  would 
go  down  into  the  ground— I am  speaking 
of  the  inside  workmen,  where  six  out  of 
a thousand  are  killed  every  year— and 
they  learn  their  trade  in  three  or  four 
years,  where  eighteen  to  twenty-four  out 
of  a thousand  are  killed,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  hundreds  of  others  who  ai  e 
maimed  and  crippled  by  reason  of  this 
occupation  which  requires  neither  skill, 
nor  intelligence,  nor  religion,  nor  moral- 
ity, nor  wages.  You  have  seen  the  miners 
come  here  day  after  day,  whether  call;  d 
by  them  or  by  us,  and  there  was  scarcely 
one  of  them  who  had  not  been  serious  y 
Injured,  broken  bones,  eyes  lost,  some 
blind,  some  maimed  forever,  almost  all 
of  them  more  or  less  disabled,  and  six 
out  of  every  thousand  e\v-ry  year,  who 
do  not  come  at  all,  and  yet  anybody  can 
be  a miner.  It  is  easy  for  a railroad 
president  and  a lawyer  to  say  that  any- 
body can  be  a miner.  Mr.  Baer  forg  t 
to  tell  us  what  his  salary  is  now.  I trust 
It  has  been  raised  since  he  got  fifty  d 1- 
lars  a year. 

The  Average  Wage. 

Five  hundred  dollars  a year  is  a big 
price  for  taking  your  life  and  your  limts 
in  your  hand  and  going  down  into  the 
earth  to  dig  up  coal  to  make  somebody 
else  rich.  These  contract  miners  that 
they  talk  of,  require  three  to  four  years' 
experience.  They  are  working  at  a trad® 
where  six  out  of  a thousand  aie  kil  ed 
every  year,  and  what  do  they  get?  I 
will  show  you  what  they  get.  I have  had 
a computation  made,  covering  every  com- 
pany that  has  filed  schedules  with  th  s 
commission,  and  I have  taken  it  from 
their  books — not  from  our  pay  rolls,  but 
from  their  books— and  in  Mr.  Baer’s  com- 
pany only  about  a third  of  them  got 
over  four  hundred  dollars  in  the  year 
1901.  You  may  lop  off  a very  few  who 
get  over  $900,  and  this  has  been  ex- 
plained, if  this  commission  has  not 
learned  it,  they  have  nu‘  learned  much. 
There  are  particular  places  and  soft 
places,  even  in  the  mines.  I asked  Mr. 
Baer's  accountant  to  turn  to  the  highest 
man  upon  his  books,  and  tell  me  what 
he  got  and  he  turned  to  a man  that  got 
$1,800.  I said,  how  many  men  did,  he  em- 
ploy. They  showed  me  15.  This  man 
took  a contract  for  doing  certain  work, 
just  as  another  one  would  take  a con- 
tract for  building  a house,  or  driving  a 
tunnel,  and  he  made  $1,800.  Some  other 
time  he  might  have  lost  as  much,  but  I 
will  take  it  that  almost  every  man  in 
this  business  who  received  more  than 
$900,  and  there  are  only  2 4-10  per  cent, 
who  got  it  in  Mr.  Baer's  company,  al- 
most every  man  was  a contractor,  and  a 
great  many  got  less.  Yet  the  public  has 
been  fed  upon  this  information,  in  order 
to  defeat  as  righteous  a demand  as  any 
body  of  laborers  ever  made  since  the 
world  began.  A man  who  claimed  to  be 
a literary  man,  who  is  dead,  and  it  would 
have  been  better  for  his  fame  if  he  had 
died  sooner,  wrote  a story  for  Mr. 
Wanamaker’s  magazine,  in  which  he  to  d 
this  country  that  the  miners  got  $150  a 
month,  and  they  owned  their  own  homes, 
and  they  had  cheap  coal,  and  money  in 


243 


the  bank,  and  then  he  hired  some  men 
to  stand  out  and  pose  for  a riot,  that  this 
could  be  sent  broadcast  over  the  country 
in  payment  for  the  gold  that  these  gen- 
tlemen would  keep  up  to  pervert  the  pub- 
lic opinion  of  the  United  States.  $150  a 
month!  There  is  not  a miner  in  the  an- 
thracite region  who  gets  it.  Now  ar.d 
then  a contractor  may  get  it  at  the  ex- 
pense of  those  men  who  are  working, 
those  men  who  are  bound  to  toil  to  make 
their  living,  instead  of  a small  class  of 
men  who  happen  to  be  the  brothers,  or 
the  sons,  or  the  sons-in-law  of  some 
petty,  feudal  boss,  who  is  managing  the 
industry  of  the  anthracite  region. 

Only  2.4  per  cent,  of  all  of  Mr.  Baer  ■ 
skilled  workmen  get  $900  a year.  We  can 
safely  leave  them  out,  as  being  of  that 
class  who  do  not  mine  coal,  but  who 
mine  men,  the  same  as  he,  who  get  their 
profits,  not  from  digging  so  many  tons  < f 
coal,  but  from  ’exploiting  so  many  hours 
of  labor  of  some  one  more  unfortunate 
than  themselves.  Let  us  take  all  the 
men  over  $800,  and  in  Mr.  Baer’s  system 
there  are  but  5 per  cent,  who  get  $800. 
These  are  plainly  all  contractors. 
The  5 per  cent.  who  get  above 
$800,  including  the  two  and  a half  per 
cent.  above  $000 — we  will  eliminate 
those.  As  Mr.  Torrey  suggested,  the 
high  and  the  low  should  be  wiped  out 
alike.  Let  us  take  the  class  less  than 
$200.  Forty-nine  per  cent.— nearly  half  of 
all  the  men  who  appear  on  the  pay-roll 
as  contract  miners — get  less  than  $200  a 
year.  Now,  I do  not  want  this  com- 
mission to  take  those  figures.  I mean  t« 
deal  fairly  with  this  commission.  I 
would  be  afraid,  if  I wrere  not  honest,  to 
ask  them  to  take  something  that  was  not 
reasonable.  Our  only  confidence  is  that 
this  commission  will  understand  the 
truth,  and  I propose  to  bank  upon  that. 
Of  those  49  per  cent,  who  get  less  than 
$200,  large  numbers  worked  only  a small 
fraction  of  the  year.  That  is  true.  And 
in  the  calculations  which  I make,  and 
which  I consider  fair  for  this  commis- 
sion. I entirely  eliminate  them.  I pro- 
pose to  throw'  out  not  only  that  49  per 
cent,  who  get  less  than  $200,  but  9 per 
cent,  more  w'ho  get  less  than  $200,  and 
then  some  besides  that.  But  let  me  say 
this,  in  passing,  everybody  has  his  own 
theory  about  the  conduct  of  business. 
Mr.  Baer  tells  us  he  is  a wonderful  busi- 
ness man,  and  I presume  he  is.  If  a 
man  has  a good  many  men  w'orklng  for 
him  it  demonstrates  that  he  is  a business 
man,  or  he  would  be  W'orklng  fot  himself, 
instead  of  having  other  men  working  for 
him.  But  I wrant  to  say  this,  that  ther® 
is  not  an  industry  in  the  country  that  is 
properly  run  for  the  sake  of  economy  if 
one-half  the  men  are  drunken  and  idle 
and  lazy — not  one.  Cod  knows  that  the 
conditions  in  this  pountry,  and  in  this 
mining  regions  are  not  so  good  that  men 
will  be  content  to  sit  down  and  earn  $2  0 
a year.  If  they  are,  they  had  better  get 
rid  of  these  men  at  once.  The  fact  that 
very  large  numbers  of  Mr.  Baer’s  men 
get  such  ridiculously  low  wages  must  be 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  conditions  were 
very,  very  hard.  They  would  drift 
around  from  one  mine  to  another;  from 
one  leading  to  another,  from  one  vein  to 
another,  in  the  wild  hope  that  some- 
where there  would  be  a better  chance. 
Men  who  mine  coal  are  not  tramps  by 
profession.  They  are  not  wandering 
around  because  they  wish  to  wander 
around.  Some  of  them  are.  In  every  cal- 
culation which  affects  human  beings,  we 
must  make  some  allowances  for  imper- 
fections of  character,  no  doubi;  but.  after 


244 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


all,  the  great,  common,  natural  laws  are 
above  us  all.  They  control.  What  Is 
(rue  in  mining  is  true  in  railroading;  it 
is  true  in  banking;  it  is  true  in  every  in- 
dustry and  vocation  of  life,  and  you  can 
not  show  me  the  pay  roll  of  a railroad 
company  or  the  pay  roll  of  any  great  in- 
dustrial institution  where  fifty  per  cent, 
of  the  men  are  idle,  vagrants,  drunkards, 
as  is  claimed  in  this  case,  to  bolster  up 
the  paltry  pay  that  they  give  to  skill  d 
men. 

Yearly  Gross  Earnings,  $528. 

Put  let  us  forget  those  men;  cut  them 
out  entirely.  Now,  cut  out  every  man 
below  $400,  and  you  get  rid  of  much  more 
than  half  of  them.  More  than  half  of 
the  men  who  imperilled  their  lives,  and 
who  carried  with  them  the  certificate  of 
the  state  of  Pennsylvania  that  they  weie 
competent  men  and  who  went  down  into 
Mr.  Baer's  mines  received  less  than  $40'. 
Let  us  assume  that  they  are  vagrants 
and  drunkards,  and  should  have  no  con- 
sideration from  this  court,  which  is  not 
true,  and  which  our  knowledge  of  hu- 
man nature  and  of  human  life,  of  the 
effort  of  man  to  live,  to  perpetuate  his 
race,  to  make  his  estate,  to  support  1 fe 
upon  the  planet,  all  of  these  prove  that 
this  statement  is  not  true.  If  it  were 
true,  the  human  race  would  have  died 
out  ages  since.  It  is  only  the  few  that 
are  weak.  Nature  lops  these  off,  un- 
relentingly destroys  them.  The  great 
mass,  the  great  middle  class,  survives. 
But  we  will  give  Mr.  Baer  the  benefit  of 
the  doubt— be  needs  it,  and  we  will  give 
it  to  him.  We  will  take  off  more  than 
half  of  his  men,  who  get  below  $4C0  a 
year,  and  we  will  lop  oft  only  5 per  cent., 
who  get  above  $800  a year,  and  then 
what  have  we?  We  have  95  per  cent  of 
all  the  men  who  are  not  lopped  off  as 
being  too  low— the  rest  is  for  his  benefit, 
you  will  understand.  And  how  much  do 
they  get?  Tn  Mr.  Baers  company,  the 
men  from  $400  to  $S00  last  year  got  $528, 
and  we  have  taken  out  of  that  one-half 
his  men,  and  more,  and  we  have  only 
lopped  off  5 per  cent,  of  those  above  $SOO. 

Now,  what  else?  That  is  not  all  clear 
money.  We  have  had  various  testimony 
as  to  how  much  it  costs  the  miner,  out- 
side of  the  powder  which  the  company 
furnishes.  This  $528  is  independent  of  the 
powder  and  independent  of  the  laborer. 
Some  of  our  men  have  said  it  costs  $3  a 
month.  I think  that  is  too  high.  Some 
have  said  it  costs  $50  a year.  Some  have 
said  it  costs  $40.  Now,  I do  not  know.  I 
am  free  to  say  I do  not  know.  I know 
this,  that  the  superintendent  of  the  Le- 
high Valley  Coal  and  Navigation  com- 
pany swore  that  he  made  30  cents  a 
week  difference  for  oil,  that  Is,  $15  a year 
for  oil.  Now,  if  my  clients  were  lawyers 
or  bankers,  or  judges  or  generals,  or 
railroad  presidents,  I would  not  be  quib- 
bling here  over  $50.  I would  say,  let  it 
go.  But  $50  is  a good  deal  to.  the  miner, 
and  I do  not  want  the  commission  to 
forget  it.  It  is  a good  deal  to  them.  In 
addition  to  that,  they  buy  they  own  tools. 
They  buy  squibs,  cotton,  their  shoes 
wear  out— they  say  that  they  wear  only 
about  two  months,  at  the  longest,  and 
they  are  expensive.  They  buy  these  sup- 
plies, which  our  miners  say.  some  of 
them,  amount  to  $40  and  some  say  to  $50, 
and  some  say  to  $60  a year,  but  $15  of  it 
is  settled  by  the  operators  themselves.  I 
take  it  that  it  amounts  to  $30  or  $10  a 
year— $40  a year  would  not  be  extreme.  I 
know  there  is  at  least  one  member  of 
this  commission  who  could  figure  It  more 
accurately  than  I can,  and  I am  per- 


fectly willing  that  his  statement  shall  go 
entirely  upon  this  matter.  Assuming 
that  it  is  $40  a year,  then  these  gentle- 
men got  $488  last  year.  That  is  the 
amount,  the  highest  average,  that  could 
be  paid  by  Mr.  Baer  for  these  exper- 
ienced men. 

Still  Further  Reduced. 

But,  now,  that  is  not  all.  This  was 
based  on  1901,  twelve  per  cent,  above  the 
average;  with  Mr.  Baer’s  company,  ten 
per  cent,  above  the  average;  but  I have 
made  the  computation  upon  the  basis  of 
twelve.  You  member  that  Mr.  Baer  said 
that  this  ten  per  cent,  raise  slid  in  the 
first  time  the  sliding  scale  slid  up,  so 
they  got  something  extra.  But  make  it 
12%;  that  is  another  proposition. 

It  is  based  upon  the  production  of  1901, 
that  is  12%  per  cent,  too  high.  You  would 
have  to  subtract  from  that  12  per  cent., 
making  it  $436.  That  is,  this— that  any 
finding  that  this  commission  can  make 
in  this  case  must  be  based  upon  the  idea 
that  over  any  considerable  period  of  time 
these  men  got  $436  a year,  and  that  is  all. 
I am  figuring  this,  not  from  our  books, 
but  from  theirs.  And  yet  lawyers,  who 
have  not  taken  the  trouble  to  understand 
these  figures,  or  even  read  them,  have 
been  content  to  stand  here  and  use  the 
testimony  of  so-called  expert  account- 
ants, who  have  manipulated  and  twisttd 
and  used  figures  for  the  sake  of  de- 
frauding 147,000  men,  that  a few  might 
grow  still  richer  and  still  greater  by  the 
iniquities  practiced  upon  the  many. 

These  gentlemen  have  given  out  their 
false  figures  to  this  country,  showing 
fifty  per  cent,  higher  wages  than  these— 
fifty  per  cent;  and  lawyers  have  stood 
here,  day  after  day,  arguing  that  these 
ngures  are  true;  because,  forsooth,  Mr. 
Baer  thinks  that  it  is  cheaper  to  hire  a 
miserable  doctor  of  figures  to  doctor  fig- 
ures than  to  find  out  for  himself  what 
these  men  honestly  get. 

I ask  nothing  from  this  commission 
beyond  what  Mr.  Baer  has  said  he  paid, 
beyond  what  Mr.  Wolverton  has  said  he 
paid,  and  I am  willing  to  take  even  the 
false,  misleading  figures  that  this  so- 
called  expert  gave  here  upon  the  witness 
stand.  And  the  reason  I was  angry  with 
him  was  not  because  I thought  he  sold 
his  soul  so  cheaply,  but  because,  for- 
sooth, I thought  he  believed  I was  surh 
a fool  that  I would  not  see  through  it. 
(Laughter.)  And  I did  not  see  why  he 
should  think  that.  He  brought  to  this 
commission  figures  purporting  to  be  the 
figures  of  wages,  including  men,  women 
and  children,  common  labor  and  all,  in 
the  thousands  of  industries  that  there 
are  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  and  in 
the  United  States,  and  he  asked  to  com- 
pare those  with  the  contract  miner,  who 
must  serve  from  three  to  four  years  ard 
whose  death-rate  from  accident  is  six  to 
the  thousand  every  year  that  he  works  in 
the  ground.  And  then,  after  that,  he 
deliberately — although  he  says  he  did  not 
do  it  deliberately,  and  I do  not  cate 
which  way  we  put  it— but  at  least  he 
compared  it  with  a table,  and  In  same 
book  was  another  tablo  showing  wages 
for  a larger  class  of  men.  $100  higher 
than  the  one  he  gave,  and  $100  higher 
than  Mr.  Baer  pays  for  his  contract 
miners— skilled  men  who  work  in  the 
ground. 

The  Basis  of  Increase. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Harrow,  upon 

what  basis  do  you  contend,  or  do  the 
miners  contend,  that  the  20  per  cent,  in- 
crease should  be  reckoned,  on  the  basis 


you  first  mentioned— the  rates  for  1901.  or 
the  1901  with  the  10  per  cent,  deduction? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Why,  if  you  are  payirg 
by  the  car,  it  should  be  20  per  cent,  m re 
per  car,  if  you  are  paying  by  the  yard. 
20  per  cent,  more  per  yard. 

The  Chairman:  No,  you  do  not  under- 
stand me.  I have  not  made  myself  clear. 
You  were  speaking  of  the  rates  of  1901 
not  heing  a fair  represenation  of  what 
the  average  wage  of  the  miner  would  be 
in  a series  of  years. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I understand. 

The  Chairman:  And  you  said  that  prior 
to  1901  they  were  something  lower,  and 
that  is  what  you  reckoned  was  the  real 
wage  that  the  miner  could  count  on? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes. 

The  Chairman:  Upon  which  basis  do 
you  want  to  have  reckoned  any  percent- 
age of  advance  that  you  claim? 

Mr.  Darrow:  It  ought  to  be  on  the  1901 
basis,  certainly— certainly.  But  I do  not 
want  the  commission  to  overlook  the 
point.  If  you  are  to  ascertain  what 
a ton  weight  is,  and  pay  us  by 
the  ton,  and  simply  add  twenty 
per  cent,  to  the  ton,  we  are  getting  it, 
not  on  the  1901  basis,  but  on  the  average. 
But  if  you  are  doing  It  by  the  yard,  as  it 
has  been  admitted  it  will  be  in  the  Read- 
ing district,  you  are  getting  it.  not  on 
the  1901  basis,  but  you  are  getting  it  cn 
the  average.  Of  course,  it  ought  to  be 
on  the  1901  basis.  On  the  1901  basis,  these 
figures  are  less  than  $500:  and  there  has 
not  been  an  operator  on  the  stand  who 
has  presumed  to  say  that  less  than  from 
six  hundred  to  six  hundred  and  fifty  dol- 
lars would  be  a fair  compensation;  ard 
most  of  them  put  it  higher  than  that. 

But,  now,  let  me  take  the  rest.  We 
have  here  the  Lehigh  Valley  Coal  com- 
pany, the  Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre  C al 
company,  the  Lehigh  Coal  and  Naviga- 
tion company,  the  Scranton  Coal  com- 
pany and  the  George  B.  Markle  company. 
That  leaves  out  of  consideration  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  and  the  Delawar  , 
Lackawanna  and  Western.  The  Dela- 
ware. Lackawanna  and  Western  are  left 
out  because  their  figures  are  not  ready 
yet.  I understand  now  that  they  just  got 
here  this  * morning:  but  I have  not  had 
much  time  to  analyze  them.  I under- 
stand they  are  about  the  same.  T!  e 
Delaware  and  Hudson  is  left  out  because 
it  has  been  brought  here  and  taken  away. 
I am  willing  to  let  Mr.  Neill  explain  that 
fully  to  this  commission,  if  the  commis- 
sion does  not  understand  it;  and  I have 
no  doubt  Mr.  Torrey  is  satisfied  to  do 
the  same. 

I will  simply  say  for  them  that  their 
figures  are  not  higher  than  the  rest.  If 
anything,  1 think  they  are  lower:  but 
they  are  certainly  not  higher  than  the 
rest.  There  were  certain  reasons — which  I 
do  not  care  to  discuss,  as  I must  say  the 
officers  have  treated  me  and  treated  us 
courteously  in  this  matter— and  I do  not 
care  to  discuss  any  reasons  about  it. 
But.  at  least,  their  figures  are  not  here, 
qnd  that  is  the  reason  I omit  them:  but 
they  are  less,  if  anything,  than  the  rest. 

Wage  Figures  Unfair. 

Of  these  five  companies,  the  Lehigh 
Valley  Coal  company,  the  Lehigh  and 
Wilkes-Barre  Coal  company,  the  Lehigh 
Coal  and  Navigation  company  and  the 
George  B.  Markle  company— there  are  six 
companies,  however— none  of  these  ate 
fair,  for  this  reason: 

Every  one  of  these  companies  only 
takes  those  men  who  appear  on  every 
pay  roll.  Some  of  them  include,  in  some 
of  those,  only  those  which,  for  some 


MINE  strike  commission 


245 


months,  the  first  and  the  last,  appeared 
on  every  half-monthly  pay  roll;  but  every 
one  of  these  four  out  of  the  six  com- 
panies have  only  taken  those  men  that 
appear  on  every  pay  roll.  Now,  our 
common  sense  will  show  us  that  this 
class  of  men  would  naturally  and  com- 
monly be  higher,  in  proportion,  than 
some  men  who,  here  and  there,  were  not 
quite  so  much  in  favor.  It  is  simply  the 
rule  of  life.  They  do  nor  do,  in  these 
four  companies,  what  it  was  asked  by 
this  commission  that  they  should  do- 
make  up  a complete  pay  roll,  so  that  we 
could  find  out.  And  these  figure  up,  as 
near  as  I can  make  it,  at  least  ten  or 
fifteen  per  cent,  high,  although  I cannot 
tell,  and  nobody  on  earth  can  tell.  I 
simply  want  the  commission  to  remem- 
ber it;  that  is  all. 

The  Scranton  Coal  company,  and  the 
Reading  company,  both  of  them,  have  in- 
cluded all  the  men,  just  exactly  as  this 
commission  provided,  excepting  this, 
which  I ought  to  say  about  the  Read- 
ing, and  which  must  be  remembered  in 
examing  these  figures— and  I wish  to  pass 
this  statement  to  the  commission  after  1 
have  finished  with  it. 

The  Reading  were  asked  ror  seven  col- 
lieries. They  had  so  many  that  we 
could  not  ask  for  every  one.  That  is, 
these  companies  were  so  well  favo-  ed 
that  we  had  to  let  them  off  easier.  We 
are  all  willing  to  do  that;  I was  willing 
to  do  it.  So  we  asked  for  seven  collieries 
— three  high  ones,  two  low  ones,  and  one 
medium  one,  or  two  high  ones,  two  low 
ones  and  two  medium  ones,  I am  not 
quite  certain  which,  bur,  at  any  rate,  in 
making  up  those  figures  the  book-keeper 
said  that  he  had  so  much  difficulty  in 
making  up  the  lowest  one,  on  account  of 
their  being  a great  many  foreigners,  with 
peculiar  names,  and  a good  many  differ- 
ent kinds  of  names,  that  he  could  not 
make  them  out;  so  he  abandoned  it.  And 
in  place  of  the  very  lowest  colliery  that 
was  picked  out  by  Mr.  Neill,  not  by  us, 
he  substituted  three  of  the  highest.  He 
made  it  nine  Instead  of  seven,  leaving 
one  low  one,  two  medium  ones  and  six  of 
the  highest  in  the  whoie  region. 

That  is  the  condition  of  the  Reading 
figures.  So,  out  of  the  thirty-seven  col- 
lieries, we  have  got  six  collieries  which 
pay  the  best  wages.  They  are  nine  per 
cent,  higher  than  the  others.  This  a’- 
lowance  has  been  made  in  these  figures, 
and  it  should  not  be  figured  up  again.  I 
will  just  state  it,  so  that  the  commission 
will  understand  that  there  seems  to  be  a 
variance.  The  commission  will  remember 
that  I asked  Mr.  Jones,  their  accountant, 
to  take  this  list,  and,  if  nine  per  cent, 
was  not  correct,  as  we  had  figured  out, 
to  report  to  us  at  2 o’clock,  which  he 
did  not  do.  So  it  will  be  safe  to  assume 
that  that  is  true.  If  not,  Mr.  Neill  will 
understand  it. 

So  these  nine  collieries  that  they  gave 
us  are  nine  per  cent,  above  their  aver- 
age; and  this  deduction  has  been  made 
in  taking  ttuese  out. 

Now,  the  Scranton  colliery  stands  just 
about  the  same,  a little  higher  than  the 
others— some  twenty  dollars  a year 
higher.  I believe  Mr.  Baer  has  the  dis- 
tinguished honor  of  being  the  lowest  in 
the  whole  region.  Whether  this  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  he  has  so  many  enter- 
prises and  so  many  people  that  he  can- 
not look  after  them  all,  or  the  fact  that 
he  does  not  recognize  any  moral  code  out- 
side the  dead  letter  of  the  law,  as  he 
told  us,  I will  have  to  leave  to  him.  But, 
anyhow,  it  is  a fact  from  these  records. 
He  is  the  Abou  Ben  Adam,  whom  my 


learned  friend  Dickson  referred  to,  who 
led  all  the  rest— going  the  other  way. 
(Laughter.) 

Average  Net  Earnings,  $525. 

When  you  sum  these  up,  as  you  take 
all  the  collieries  together,  up  on  exactly 
the  same  ratio,  nearly  all  the  companies 
stand  the  same  as  to  the  average,  al- 
though not  quite  the  same  as  the  Read- 
ing. That  is,  there  are  many  more  low 
men  in  the  Reading  than  anywhere  else, 
but  the  number  excluded  will  not  run 
over  ten  per  cent,  at  the  top,  and,  in 
most  instances,  two  or  three  at  the  top, 
and  it  runs  from  33  to  60  at  the  bottom. 
All  the  rest  of  them,  75  or  80  per  cent., 
and  up  to  90  per  cent,  of  everybody  but 
the  low  men  are  taken  in,  and  they  come 
from  four  hundred  dollars  to  eight  hun- 
dred dollars,  and  they  averaged  last  year 
five  hundred  and  sixty-one  dollars.  Out 
of  that  you  must  take  at  least  $40.  $525 
were  the  total  earnings  of  this  class  of 
men,  who  must  have  these  years  of  ex- 
perience and  do  this  sort  of  work. 

Let  us  see  what  else.  They  are  not  the 
only  men  who  go  down  into  the  earth.  Of 
course,  in  this  world,  you  know  that  the 
men  who  get  the  best  pay  are  always  in 
evidence  the  most.  The  lawyers  are  in 
front  of  the  miners  and  the  miners  in 
front  of  the  mine  workers.  Most  of  the 
people  we  have  had  on  the  stand  were 
contract  miners— the  poor  devil  that  ioaa* 
the  coal,  we  do  not  want  to  forget  him. 
What  has  he  been  getting?  He  works  in 
the  ground.  The  falling  rock,  or  a stray 
car,  or  a belated  blast,  will  catch  him 
the  same  as  the  experienced  miner.  His 
business  is  almost  as  dangerous  as  the 
contract  miner.  More  than  five  out  of 
every  thousand  of  his  craft  are  killed 
every  year,  to  say  nothing  of  the  maimed 
and  the  crippled  and  the  blind,  who  are 
turned  out  under  the  beneficent  laws 
of  the  state  of  Pennsylvania,  to  the 
almshouses  and  highways  and  the  by- 
ways, because  no  man  can  recover  in 
this  state,  and  I say  it  advisedly,  that  I 
believe  there  is  not  another  state  in  the 
union  where  it  is  as  difficult  to  recover 
as  in  this  commonwealth  of  Pennsylva- 
nia. When  I think  of  the  cripples,  of  the 
orphans,  of  the  widows,  of  the  maimed, 
who  are  dragging  their  lives  out  on  ac- 
count of  this  business,  who,  if  they  we;  e 
mules  or  horses  would  be  cared  for,  but 
who  are  left  and  neglected,  it  seems  to 
me  this  is  the  greatest  indictment  of  this 
business  that  can  possibly  be  mad-. 
There  are  thousands  of  them,  and  many 
of  them  have  come  before  this  commis- 
sion to  tell  their  story  and  to  exhibit 
their  misfortunes,  under  our  advice.  Of 
these  laborers,  five  out  of  a thousand  are 
killed  every  year.  There  is  not  any  rec- 
ord of  how  many  accidents  there  were. 
An  accident  must  be  pretty  serious  to  be 
recorded.  As  our  old  friend  Gallagher 
said,  you  do  not  count  it  an  accident  in 
the  mine  unless  you  get  half  killed,  and, 
you  remember,  he  had  been  half  killed 
twice.  They  have  come  in  here  with 
broken  arms,  and  disfigured  faces,  and 
broken  legs,  and  with  one  eye,  and  with 
no  eyes,  to  tell  the  tale  of  this  business, 
upon  which  all  the  industry  of  this  coun- 
try, especially  the  east,  is  resting  today. 
If,  forsooth,  these  poor  miners  are  to 
have  shorter  hours,  or  more  pay,  nothing 
short  of  a calamity  will  overtake  the  in- 
dustry of  the  east! 

Weil,  I do  not  like  calamities,  especially 
when  they  come  to  me.  But  if  the  civil- 
ization of  this  country  rests  upon  the 
necessity  of  leaving  these  starvation 
wages  to  these  miners  and  laborers,  or 


if,  as  my  friend  Reynolds  Indicated  to 
this  commission  yesterday.  It  rests  upon 
the  labor  of  these  poor  little  boys,  who 
frem  12  to  14  years  of  age,  are  picking 
their  way  through  the  dirt,  clouds  and 
dust  of  the  anthracite  coal,  then  the 
sooner  we  are  done  with  this  civilization 
and  start  over  anew,  the  better  for  the 
humanities  that,  after  all,  must  survi\e 
all  forms  of  civilization,  whether  good  < r 
bad.  I do  not  believe  that  the  civiliza- 
tion of  this  country  and  the  industry  of 
the  east  depends  upon  whether  you  leave 
these  men  in  the  mines  nine  hours,  or  ten 
hours,  or  whether  you  leave  these  litt  e 
children  in  the  breakers.  If  it  Is  not 
based  on  a more  substantial  foundation 
than  that,  then  it  is  time  that  th  se  cap- 
tains of  industry  resigned  their  commis- 
sion and  turned  it  over  to  some  theorists, 
to  see  if  they  cannot  bring  ruin  and 
havoc  a good  deal  quicker.  These  gentle- 
men will  find  a way  when  they  have  to 
find  it.  It  is  a trick  of  human  nature 
that  they  never  will  find  a way  until 
they  have  to  find  it. 

Laborers’  Pay. 

But  I was  speaking  about  the  laborers. 
These  laborers  got,  last  year,  $333.  Prince- 
ly wages,  and  yet  we  are  told  that  a 1 
was  peace  and  joy  arid  happiness  in  the 
anthracite  region  until  Mr.  Mitchell 
came.  $333  a year  for  these  men  who 
shovel  coal  in  the  mines  nine  and  ten 
hours  a day,  and  five  out  of  a thousand 
killed  by  accidents  every  year!  What  tf 
the  rest?  This  was  last  year.  The  fact 

is,  that  they  got  about  $300  on  an  average 
until  Mr.  Mitchell  came  here,  with  th  s 
much-abused  organization  of  his  to  create 
desolation  and  havoc  among  these  serfs. 
It  was  about  $270  a year  in  those  halcyon 
days.  No  wonder  that  they  long  for  the 
good  old  days  again,  the  days  when 
everything  was  so  peaceable  and  so 
happy,  before  the  war.  (Laughter.) 

What  about  the  company  men?  Here 
is  where  we  get  our  composite  men.  I 
have  not  seen  one  of  these  composite 
men  yet.  All  we  know  is  that  the  com- 
posite man  gets  bigger  wages  than  the 
real  man,  and  he  does  not  need  as  much 
to  eat.  No  wonder  their  figurers  love 
the  composite  man.  He  has  every  ele- 
ment for  a good,  useful  citizen,  from  their 
standpoint.  About  sixty  per  cent,  of  all 
the  employes  are  composite  men.  and 
they  are  paid  by  the  month.  Nobody 
knows  what,  but  still  they  axe  paid  by 
the  month.  They  do  not  know  them- 
selves. They  give  us  a rate  of  payment, 
and  they  assume  in  this  rate  of  pay- 
ment most  of  them  are  Idlers,  and  va- 
grants, and  drunkards.  I think  thty 
must  buy  pretty  cheap  whiskey,  to  say 
the  least.  On  this  list  the  largest  num- 
ber of  men  are  laborers.  I will  not  take 
the  time  to  go  ever  each  company  by 
itself,  but,  assuming  they  were  real  men, 
instead  of  composite  men.  the  laborers 
got  $334  last  year.  Now.  they  do  not  get 

it.  Their  figurers  figured  they  got  it. 
They  would  have  got  it.  if  they  had 
worked  every  day  the  breaker  worked. 
But  we  will  take  the  figures  as  they  are 
—they  are  bad  enough.  If  we  cannot  get 
a raise  on  them,  I do  not  think  we  wi  1 
get  a raise  on  a smaller  amount,  be- 
cause if  they  were  down  much  lower, 
everybody  would  think  they  were  not 
worth  it.  But  the  laborers,  who  are  the 
largest  class  in  these  companies,  aver- 
aged $334  last  year.  I am  taking  the  r 
figures,  not  ours.  They  are  the  best  we 
have  got,  and  if  I was  the  commission, 
of  course,  I would  take  them  with  all 


246 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


of  these  allowances  that  will  readily  ap- 
pear to  all  of  us. 

Next  to  them,  the  largest  class  is  the 
loaders.  They  got  $370  last  year,  that  is, 
the  company  loaders,  the  company 
laborers.  They  got  more  money  than  the 
contract  laborers  here.  Here  let  me  re- 
fer to  the  company  miners.  We  are  told 
of  the  big  wages.  Why,  this  story  is  too 
absurd  to  talk  on.  There  is  not  a mire 
in  this  country,  there  is  not  a mine  in 
the  anthracite  region  tnat  does  not  keep 
on  its  pay  roll  something  like  five,  ten, 
fifteen  per  cent,  of  company  miners.  In 
the  presence  of  Commissioner  Watkins,  I 
will  not  be  quite  sure  of  the  exact  per- 
centage, but  it  is  somewhere  along  there. 
At  least,  they  keep  on  their  pay  rolls  a 
considerable  number  of  company  miners. 
These  are  paid  by  the  day,  or,  rather, 
by  the  hour,  and  are  paid  for  ten  hours’ 
work  in  the  mines.  If  they  only  stay 
there  eight  hours,  they  get  eight-tenths 
of  a day’s  wages.  If  they  only  stay  there 
three  or  four  hours,  which  these  gentle- 
men would  have  us  believe,  they  would 
get  three  or  four-tenths  of  a day’s  wages. 
What  do  they  get?  They  get  from  $2.(9 
to  $2.50  a day.  There  is  not  one  company 
In  this  region— possibly  one— that  pajs 
over  $2.50,  and  almost  none  pay  that 
much.  The  Reading,  as  I recall  it,  pays 
$2.32  a day  for  ten  hours,  for  company 
miners.  If  they  only  work  five,  six  or 
seven  hours,  it  is  easy  to  see  what  they 
get. 

What  else  do  those  gentlemen  say? 
you  can  sometimes  get  the  truth  from 
their  bosses  if  you  watch  closely.  They 
say  if  a man  does  not  get  enough,  we 
make  it  up.  If,  forsooth,  the  contract 
miner  does  not  get  enough,  we  make  it 
up  to  him.  I said,  what  do  you  mean  by 
getting  enough?  Why,  do  not  get  as 
much  as  the  company  miner.  Do  you  pay 
out  much  that  way?  Oh,  yes,  a great 
deal.  Of  course,  a witness  will  say  al- 
most anything,  if  you  make  him  think 
you  want  him  to  say  the  other  thing. 
These  gentlemen  thought  it  would  show 
their  generosity  to  say  how  much  they 
paid  out  to  contract  miners  by  way 
of  allowances.  It  may  be  they  made  it 
bigger  than  it  was,  I do  not  know.  They 
paid  a great  deal  to  contract  miners,  by 
way  of  allowances,  when  the  rock  is  too 
hard,  or  the  jarring  has  caused  the  roof 
to  cave,  or  the  track  is  out  of  repair,  or 
they  have  to  move  the  coal  too  far,  or 
something  happens,  then  they  have  to 
pay  out  money  to  make  it  up.  I said, 
when  do  you  pay  it?  Why,  when  the 
contract  miner  .does  not  get  as  much  as 
the  company  miner,  $2.33  a day  for  ten 
hours.  So,  these  contract  miners,  whom 
this  novelist  tells  us  get  $150  a 
month— and  he  is  not  the  only  novelist 
down  in  these  regions — receive  $2.32  a day 
for  ten  hours’  work. 

And  even  these  bosses  are  ashamed  to 
take  it.  They  do  not  need  the  money, 
and  so  they  make  it  up  to  them.  Now, 
I take  it,  that  those  two  facts  furnish  a 
pretty  good  index  to  the  earnings  of  these 
miners.  First,  that  a large  body  of  them 
are  on  these  pay  rolls  at  this  rate,  and. 
next,  with  the  contraqt  miners,  even,  the 
company  themselves  are  forced  to  allow 
a considerable  amount  pecause  they  do 
not  make  as  much  as  the  company 
miners. 

Pay  of  Breaker  Boys. 

Rut  let  us  see  what  else  there  is  on 
this  schedule.  The  slate  pickers  are  a 
very  large  class.  Of  course,  they  are 
children.  Mr.  Baer  told  the  commissioner 
of  labor,  and  he  told  the  United  States 


senate,  and  he  told  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  that  the  lowest  rate  that 
he  paid  to  slate  pickers  was  85  cents.  C f 
course,  Mr.  Baer  is  a busy  man.  He  is  a 
practical  man.  He  is  not  a dreamer  or 
a theorist.  He  got  the  figures  trans- 
posed. The  books  that  he  has  filed  show 
that  the  rate  is  58  cents  Instead  of  85 
cents.  But,  like  his  other  mistakes,  he 
has  not  found  it  out  yet,  at  least  not  un- 
til now.  He  informed  the  country  that 
the  lowest  rate  of  these  boys  was  85  cents. 
It  is  58  cents.  Now,  I do  not  know  what 
you  will  do,  but  if  I were  the  commis- 
sion I would  raise  these  boy^’  wages  to 
$2.50  a day.  (Laughter.)  So  that  they 
would  get  rid  of  all  of  them— every  one 
of  them.  If  the  work  of  this  commis- 
sion does  not  result  in  getting  rid  cf 
this  abominably  disgraceful  evil  of  child- 
labor  in  Pennsylvania,  then  I think  the 
people  may  well  say  that  it  has  been  a 
failure.  You  may  not  get  rid  of  it  at 
once,  but  no  man  ever  lived  that  cou  d 
make  an  excuse  for  it.  I do  not  think 
any  man  ever  lived  that  would  not  blush 
because  of  the  money  he  gets  from  it.  1 
was  surprised  that  my  friend  Reynolds, 
in  his  zeal,  should  defend  it — defend  the 
taking  of  a boy  12  years  old,  and  set- 
ting him  down  to  labor  In  this  everlast- 
ing cloud,  for  ten  hours,  or  eight  hours, 
or  any  hours— for  what?  That  you  may 
get  gold.  That  is  all.  Can  any  man 
frame  an  honest  defense  for  it?  Wheie 
are  your  sons  and  your  daughters?  Let 
me  say  this,  that  until  you,  Mr.  Rail- 
road President,  or  you.  Mr.  Lawyer,  will 
take  your  child  by  the  hand  and  lead 
him  up  the  breaker  stairs  and  sit  him 
down  to  pick  at  that  trough  of  moving 
coal,  until  you  will  take  your  pale  girl 
to  the  silk  mills,  let  me  speak  for  the 
children  of  the  poor.  Is  there  any  one 
who  can  defend  it?  'Imis  custom  has 
grown  up  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvana 
because  there  is  money  in  it,  and  the 
industries  of  Pennsylvania  are  depend- 
ent upon  it.  Shame  upon  the  industries 
of  Pennsylvania,  if  this  is  true!  If  it  is 
so,  of  little  avail  have  we  protected  this 
great  state  for  half  a cetury,  if  the  re- 
sult of  all  of  it  is  that  men  shall  grow 
rich  from  the  labor  of  these  little  chil- 
dren. 

Child  Labor. 

Another  thing,  it  is  not  easy  to  general- 
ize. I have  sought  to  the  best  of  the 
ability  I have  to  studv  some  of  these  im- 
portant problems.  I may  have  studied 
them  wisely,  I may  have  studied  them 
foolishly,  but  at  least  I have  sought  to 
find  out.  The  evidence  in  this  case  shows 
that  every  single  one  of  these  industries 
is  run  by  the  labor  of  these  children.  It 
shows  more  than  this.  It  shows  that  in 
the  vicinity  of  Scranton  are  at  least 
twenty  mills— silk  mills,  knitting  mills, 
thread  mills— where  little  girls  fvom  12  to 
13  or  11  years  of  age  are  working  10 
hours  a day,  12  hours  a day,  and  12  hours 
at  night  as  well.  Do  not  tell  me  that 
that  is  due  to  the  inhumanity  of  the 
father  or  mother.  It  is  contrary  to 
natural  law.  The  wolf  suckles  her  young. 
The  wild  animal  cares  for  its  offspring, 
and  the  human  being  Is  not  less  kind 
than  the  wolf  or  the  boast.  The  instinct 
of  life  planted  deep  in  all  living  things 
provides  that  the  old  must  care  for  the 
young.  It  provides  that  the  parent, 
whether  man  or  beast,  nyist  care  for  its 
offspring.  It  needs  no  human  law  to  en- 
force it.  It  needs  nothing  but  a chance 
for  those  common,  eternal  Instincts  which 
have  kept  the  human  race  alive.  Is  there 
any  man  so  blind  that  he  does  not  know 


why  that  anthracite  region  is  dotted  with 
silk  mills?  Why  are  they  not  on  the 
prairies  of  the  west?  Why  are  they  not 
somewhere  else?  Why  is  it  that  men  who 
make  money  that  is  spun  from  the  lives 
of  these  little  babes,  men  who  use  these 
children  to  deck  their  daughters  and 
their  wives— why  is  it  that  they  went  to 
Scranton  and  to  all  those  towns?  They 
went  there  because  the  miners  were 
there.  They  went  there  just  as  naturally 
as  a wild  beast  goes  to  find  its  prey. 
They  went  there  as  the  hunter  goes 
where  he  can  find  game.  Every  mill  in 
that  region  is  a testimony  to  tne  fact 
that  the  wages  that  you  pay  are  so  low 
that  you  sell  your  boys  to  be  slaves  of 
the  breaker  and  your  girls  to  be  slaves 
in  the  mills. 

These  problems  are  not  new.  They  were 
threshed  out  in  England  fifty  years  ago 
— more  than  fifty  years  ago — until  string- 
ent laws  prevented  theS"e  abuses  there. 
Smaller  boys,  smaller  girls  than  these 
worked  longer  hours  in  England.  Robert 
Day  Lorn  relates  in  the  early  days  of  his 
campaigning  that  he  went  into  one  of 
these  mines  where  one  of  the  boys,  8 or  9 
years  old,  was  working,  and  he  a.sked 
him  if  he  knew  anything  about  God.  The 
boy  replied:  "I  don't  think  He  works  in 

this  chamber.  He  must  work  in  the 
next."  Why  should  he?  Why  could  he? 

When  these  railroad  presidents  were 
finally  called  to  book  before  the  president 
of  the  United  States  one  of  them  shed 
tears  because  the  United  Mine  Workers 
allowed  these  boys  to  join  their  organi- 
zation, because  they  taught  these  poor 
babes  doctrines  of  anarchy  and  disobedi- 
ence of  law.  This  railroad  president  shed 
tears  because  the  United  Mine  Workers 
were  spoiling  the  souls  of  these  poor 
children,  and  yet  he  was  willing  to  take 
the  earnings  of  these  pool  children  that 
he  and  his  family  might  be  richer  be- 
cause of  their  toil.  These  babes  know 
their  friend.  Th^re  is  not  one  of  these 
children  so  ignorant,  not  one  of  them  so 
lost  to  natural  instincts  that  he  does  not 
know  who  loves  him.  There  is  not  one 
that  would  not  run  from  a railroad  presi- 
dent to  the  open  arms  of  John  Mitchell: 
and  they  are  right.  I have  no  doubt  the 
railroad  president  loves  children.  Neither 
have  I any  doubt  that  the  wolf  loves  mut- 
ton. These  men  make  a living  out  of 
these  children  and  if  they  can  do  nothing 
else  in  this  region,  this  infamy  should 
end.  These  little  children  get  $135  a year. 

The  Chairman:  You  mean  the  boys? 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  boys. 

The  Chairman:  Not  the  little  girls? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Oh.  no.  We  have  only 
indirect  jurisdiction  over  them. 

The  Chairman:  They  get  from  5 to  7 
cents  an  hour? 

Mr.  Darrow:  There  were  some  of  them 
who  only  got  3 cents  an  hour,  were  there 
not? 

Commissioner  Clarke:  Yes,  3 to  5 cents 
an  hour. 

The  Chairman:  And  the+  worked  from 
6 o'clock  in  the  evening  until  (1  o'clock 
the  next  morning? 

Mr.  Darrow:  They  are  better  off  than 
the  boys. 

The  Chairman:  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I mean  the  boys  are  bet- 
ter off  than  them. 

The  Chairman:  Yes. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Boys  generally  have  the 
best  of  it  in  this  world. 

Commissioner  Clark:  Until  they  grow 
up.  (Laughter.) 

Mr.  Darrow:  I shall  have  occasion  to 
refer  to  this  again.  First  I want  to  dis- 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


pose  of  these  wages,  so  far  as  they  go. 
These  company  men,  outside  of  steam 
men,  firemen,  and  engineers,  all  range 
from  $300  to  $350  a year.  If  that  is  any 
reasonable  rate  of  wages,  gentlemen,  all 
right.  They  are  not  reasonable.  They 
are  not  just.  They  are  not  fair,  in  any 
fair  meaning  of  the  word.  So  much  for 
the  wages. 

This  commission  has  these  schedules. 
The  contract  miners  of  this  region  last 
year  received  less  than  $535.  Before  that 
they  received  in  the  neighborhood  of 
$460;  and  that  was  after  the  10  per  cent, 
raise  of  1900,  before  which  their  wages 
were  about  $400  a year.  Up  to  1900  the 
contract  miners  of  this  region  were  get- 
ting something  like  $400  a year  and  the 
laborers  who  toiled  all  day  in  the  mines 
were  getting  less  than  $300  a year. 

And  these  are  the  halcyon  days  that 
the  coal  operators  speak  of.  These  are 
the  days  before  John  Mitchell  came  to 
this  region,  when  everything  was  pros- 
perity and  happiness  and  peace. 

Abram  S.  Hewitt  Quoted. 

Now,  I want  to  say  a word  about  those 
days,  and  I want  to  Quote  here  from  a 
man  who  is  not  a theorist.  I want  t« 
quote  from  a practical  business  man,  a 
man  who  has  employed  almost  as  many 
men  and  women  and  possibly  little  chil- 
dren as  Mr.  Baer;  and  that  is  Abram  S. 
Hewitt. 

My  friend,  Major  Warren,  shed  some 
tears  over  Mr.  Hewitt's  new-made  grave; 
he  told  the  commission  how  great  a man 
he  was.  Now,  I learned  to  admire  him 
many  years  ago.  I learned  some  of  my 
first  doctrines  of  political  economy  from 
Abram  S.  Hewitt,  and,  unfortunately, 
some  others  from  his  great  father-in-law. 
Peter  Cooper.  They  do  not  exactly  agree, 
but  they  were  both  good  doctrines. 

Mr.  Hewitt  has  been  quoted  here;  and  I 
should  speak  kindly  of  him  even  if  he 
was  not  dead.  My  Scotch  friend,  Brother 
Burns,  whose  radical  speech  could  only 
be  explained  to  me  upon  the  theory  that 
for  once  in  his  life  he  had  gotten  on  the 
wrong  side  and  was  talking  against  ev- 
erything that  he  had  professed  all  his 
life,  and  so  he  forgot  himself;  that  is  the 
first  time  I have  heard  Mr.  Burns  speak 
since  he  came  into  our  hearing  that  I 
have  not  felt  that  it  was  not  interesting 
and  instructive,  but  I will  refer  to  that 
again — Mr.  Burns  read  from  Mr.  Gowen, 
a great  criminal  lawyer,  who  was  prose- 
cuting the  Molly  Maguires.  Of  course  a 
criminal  lawyer  or  any  other  kind  of  a 
lawyer  trying  a case  is  not  the  very  ocst 
authority  in  the  world.  That  is  a habit 
of  other  lawyers— to  look  at  things  from 
their  own  standpoint.  Pretty  nearly  all 
the  other  lawyers  I ever  knew  did  that; 
so  I do  not  know  about  Mr.  Gnwen's  ar- 
raignment of  the  Molly  Maguires,  j do 
not  know  much  about  the  Molly  Ma- 
guires. I remeipber  that  I heard  of  them 
when  I was  a very  young  child,  and  I 
then  thought  of  them  about  as  Mr.  Baer 
thinks  of  a trade-unionist  now.  I think 
perhaps  if  I knew  more  about  them  I 
might  find  that  even  they  had  some  re* 
deeming  virtues.  In  fact.  I have  gener- 
ally found  them  in  everybody  when  I 
looked  for  them.  When  I do  not.  of 
course  I do  not  find  them,  because  I am 
not  looking  for  them.  Human  nature 
seems  to  be  a good  deal  alike  the  world 
over.  We  are  bound  to  find  about  what 
we  look  for  and  what  we  have  the  eyes 
to  see  and  the  heart  to  feel. 

But,  at  any  rate,  this  is  what  Mr.  Hew- 
itt said.  And  as  Mr.  Hewitt  was  an  ex- 


tensive coal  operator  before  he  died,  and 
said  some  things  to  President  Roosevelt 
in  reference  to  this  strike,  and  is  really 
brought  into  it;  perhaps  his  words  are 
worth  quoting  in  this  connection,  apropos 
of  the  halcyon  days  before  John  Mitchell 
came  to  Pennsylvania.  (Reading): 

“In  1876,  during  the  days  of  the  Molly 
Maguires,  I made  a tour  of  inspection 
through  the  mining  region.  I found  ter- 
rible conditions  there.  I found  the  men 
living  like  pigs  and  dogs  under  wretched- 
ly brulal  conditions.  If  the  same  spirit 
of  sacrifice  which  has  sent  out  our  mis 
sionaries  into  every  heathen  land  had 
been  shown  in  the  coal  regions,  and  the 
same  efforts  had  been  made  to  establish 
and  maintain  the  school  house,  the 
church,  and  above  all  the  Sunday  scnooi, 
which  have  borne  such  fruits  elsewhere 
in  this  broad  land;  if  the  hospital  for  the 
sick  and  the  comfortable  refuge  for  the 
unfortunate  had  been  carefully  provided; 
if  reading  rooms  and  night  schools  and 
rational  places  of  amusement  had  from 
the  outset  been  maintained  for  a grow- 
ing and  restless  population,  the  coal 
regions  today  might  have  been  a para- 
dise on  earth  instead  of  a disgrace  to 
civilization.” 

That  is  Mr.  Hewitt  before  he  became 
interested  in  the  coal  region.  Where  are 
the  reading  rooms?  Where  are  these  im- 
provements which  Mr.  Hewitt  says  the 
operators  should  have  brought  to  have 
made  a paradise  of  this  land  that  they 
have  converted  into  a howling  wilder- 
ness? Where  is  the  little  child  whose  la- 
bor they  have  taken  who  has  ever  re- 
ceived as  much  as  a Christmas  card  or  a 
Christmas  present  or  a remembrance  to 
know  that  he  has  a soul,  and  that  there 
is  any  human  being  on  earth  who  has 
any  thought  of  him  except  to  get  money 
from  his  toil? 

These  gentlemen  who  do  not  live  with 
their  men,  who  appoint  their  bosses  and 
their  overseers  and  expect  them  to  pro- 
duce results — it  is  well  for  them  to  say 
we  are  anarchists  and  criminals,  that  wo 
are  drunkards,  that  we  are  profligates, 
that  we  cannot  speak  the  English  lan- 
guage, that  we  are  unruly  toys.  But  it 
would  come  with  far  better  grace  from 
them  if  they  could  show  that  ever  once, 
ever  once  in  all  their  administration  of 
these  lands  and  of  these  natural  bounties 
which  Mr.  Baer  thinks  the  Lord  gave  to 
him  to  administer— that  ever  once  they' 
have  considered  any  one  but  themselves. 

Countering  on  Baer. 

Why  did  they  allow  this  strike?  We 
heard  much  from  Mr.  Baer  this  morning, 
and  we  heard  the  same  old  story  that 
has  been  repeated  wherever  these  gen- 
tlemen have  spoken,  and  that  has  been 
published  in  the  newspapers  whenever 
they  are  willing  to  pay"  advertising  rates, 
which  is  always— the  same  old  stories, 
false  and  misleading  and  untrue.  These 
gentlemen  cannot  even  learn.  Their  asso- 
ciation here  before  this  commission  shout  1 
have  taught  them  something.  Mr.  Baer 
comes  here  with  the  old,  worn-out  story 
that  our  men  were  brigands  and  high- 
waymen because,  lorsooth.  they  refused 
to  pump  out  the  mines  for  a twelve- 
hour  day  while  their  brothers  were  on 
strike. 

I want  to  speak  of  that  for  a moment. 
This  ancient  lie  has  traveled  up  and 
down  the  land,  and  it  seems  that  nothing 
can  stop  it;  and  it  is  recorded  again  here 
today,  after  it  has  been  shown  for  thve  • 
months  to  be  false.  After  these  gentle- 
men have  confessed  from  their  own 


217 


mouths  that  it  was  their  own  ignorant, 
brutal  prejudice  that  caused  all  this 
trouble,  they  come  again  to  this  commis- 
sion and  say  we  yvere  highwaymen,  be- 
cause, forsooth,  we  would  not  work! 

How  much  truth  is  there  in  it?  i his 
story  was  repeated  to  the  president  of 
the  United  States.  It  was  told  to  the 
commissioner  of  labor.  Tt  was  told  upon 
the  witness  stand.  It  has  been  told  in 
the  newspapers.  It  has  been  told  where- 
ever  men  could  be  bought  or  hired  to  lis- 
ten to  the  tale.  And  what  is  it? 

Why,  here  it  is.  Is  there  any  man  with 
a grain  of  sense  who  will  look  at  th  a 
story  in  an  unbiased  way  and  not  under- 
stand where  all  the  fault  was?  W'htn 
this  strike  commenced,  the  firemen,  the 
engineers  and  the  pump-men  were  not  at 
first  involved.  The  evidence  is  that  they 
attempted  to  strike  a year  before,  and 
strike  for  an  eight-hour  day;  that  there- 
upon the  leaders  of  this  organization 
went  to  them  and  told  them  the  time 
was  not  ripe,  but  if  they  would  wait 
they  would  help  them  when  the  time 
should  come.  And  when  the  United  Mine 
Workers  determined  to  enter  upon  this 
strike,  then  the  firemen,  the  englneeis 
and  the  pump-men  determined  that  it 
was  their  time  to  get  the  eight-hour  day. 

Now,  I take  it  that  whatever  question 
there  may  be  before  this  commission, 
there  can  be  no  question  about  the  jus- 
tice of  these  demands.  Let  us  think  of 
it  a minute. 

Here  are  the  firemen,  shoveling  some 
days  thirty,  forty,  fifty  tons  of  coal,  and 
even  more.  Here  are  the  firemen  work- 
ing twelve  hours  a day,  and  every  day 
in  the  year.  They  have  no  Sunday.  They 
do  not  need  to  go  to  church  or  any- 
where else— they  are  firemen.  No  Christ- 
mas, no  Fourth  of  July,  not  even  a 
John  Mitchell  Day  (laughter) — nothing. 
They  work  365  days  in  the  year,  wi  h 
only  one  variation,  and  that  is  on  leap 
year,  when  they  work  366.  (Great  laugh- 
ter.) 

But,  in  order  to  give  this  fireman  a 
Sunday  off  every  other  week,  so  that 
religious  privileges  should  not  be  entirely 
denied  even  to  him,  they  give  him  the 
privilege  of  working  twenty-four  hours 
one  week  and  laying  off  the  next — and 
they  do  not  think  that  is  too  long. 
Twenty-four  hours  for  a days  work! 
And  their  only  regret,  probably,  is  that 
they  cannot  get  twenty-five.  (Laughter.) 
And  some  of  these  men  tell  about  work- 
ing sometimes  two,  three,  four,  even  fixe 
of  these  days.  Those,  of  course,  ar; 
times  when  there  is  some  difficulty;  some 
man  is  laid  off  by  reason  of  being  sick, 
or  something  of  that  sort. 

I wonder,  gentlemen,  whether  any 
member  of  this  commission  could  think 
that  these  companies  should  not  hax  e 
given  them  an  eight-hour  shift — put  on 
three  shifts  of  men  instead  of  two— ai  d 
if  you  believe  that  the  pillars  of  civiliza- 
tion would  have  been  pulled  from  out 
the  temple  if  you  should  find  it  in  your 
ruling  in  this  case?  And  these  firemen, 
by  the  way,  got  about  $1.75  a day  for 
twelve  hours.  Why,  I would  not  want  to 
listen  to  this  argument  for  twelve  houis 
for  that  kind  of  wages  (laughter),  to 
say  nothing  about  shoveling  forty  tons 
of  coal.  One  dollar  and  seventy-flx-e  cents 
a day,  and  only  twenty-four  hours  every 
other  Sunday! 

Mine  Engineers. 

What  of  the  engineers?  They  say  that 
is  an  easy  job,  they  sleep.  Do  they? 
Every  single  employer  was  forced  to  ad- 
mit it  was  against  the  rules  and  that  a 


248 


man  would  be  discharged  for  sleeping. 
They  say  that  sometimes  they  sleep  at 
night,  because  it  is  not  a very  hard  job 
to  tend  an  engine.  Well,  I have  no  doubt 
it  is  sometimes  harder  than  at  other 
times.  But  there  are  times  when  it  is  a 
hard  job  to  be  an  engineer.  In  the  fiist 
place,  it  takes  a skilled,  experienced  man, 
a man  who  must  let  his  fellow  workmen 
down  to  the  bottom  of  the  mines  and 
bring  him  up  again.  A moment’s  for- 
getfulness, a moment’s  lack  of  thought, 
means  the  death  of  perhaps  twenty  or 
twenty-five  of  his  comrades.  A man 
whose  business  it  is  to  raise  and  lower 
sixty  or  seventy  cars  of  coal  an  hour, 
more  than  one  a minute,  sometimes 
through  ten  hours  a day,  sometimes 
longer.  It  surely  is  not  an  easy  job.  At 
any  rate,  they,  too,  had  this  twelve-hour 
day,  with  the  swing  shift,  twenty-four 
hours  every  two  weeks  And  the  pump- 
men, who  must  be  there,  too,  the  men 
who  man  the  pumps,  who  keep  the  water 
out  of  the  mines,  they  must  be  there  ad 
the  time,  and  to  save  hiring  three  men, 
they  hire  two  and  make  them  work 
twelve  hours  a day,  to  keep  the  water 
out  and  keep  the  air  pure. 

Now,  these  men  had  struck  once— they 
struck  for  eight  hours.  The  union 
thought  the  time  was  not  propitious  and 
they  told  them  to  wait.  This  strike  came 
on,  and  they  said  let  us  join,  and  they 
sent  their  delegates.  What  did  the  mine 
workers  do?  They  said,  all  right,  you 
may  strike,  but,  before  you  strike,  we 
will  give  ten  days’  notice,  we  will  give 
notice  on  the  first  day  of  June  that  if 
they  will  not  give  you  eight  hours  a 
day,  by  the  tenth  of  June  we  will  strike. 
These  gentlemen  say  we  held  them  up 
with  a club;  we  abandoned  our  post  ol 
duty.  I supposed  that  some  of  the  ideas 
of  feudalism  had  not  found  root  in  demo- 
cratic America.  Was  this  a post  of  duty? 
Was  he  a soldier,  a sailor?  It  was  a 
plain  contract,  to  be  terminated  any  day 
by  notice  by  either  party,  and  these  men 
did  not  even  give  notice  that  they  wou  d 
terminate  it,  but  they  said  to  their  em- 
ployers, give  us  an  eight-hour  day  apd 
we  will  stay  at  work,  and  if  you  do  not. 
we  will  strike.  What  was  the  result? 
They  paraded  to  the  country  that  these 
poor  miners  are  responsible  for  flooding 
the  mines.  Gentlemen,  this  was  an  in- 
dustrial war.  I do  not  like  the  word 
much  better  than  the  chairman,  but 
there  are  all  sorts  of  wars— and  this  was 
no  child’s  play.  I am  willing  to  say,  al- 
though it  is  entirely  aside  from  this  case, 
you  on  your  side  were  fighting  147,000 
men,  with  their  wives  and  their  children, 
and  the  weapons  you  used  were  hunger 
and  want.  You  thought  to  bring  them 
to  terms  by  the  most  cruel,  deadly  wea- 
pon that  any  oppressor  has  ever  used 
to  bring  men  to  his  terms— hunger  and 
want.  You,  on  your  side,  used  these 
weapons.  These  fighting  miners  had  tl  e 
legal  right  and  the  natural  right  to  use, 
upon  their  side,  this  weapon,  had  they 
seen  fit,  and  say  to  these  men,  unless 
you  surrender  to  us,  accept  our  terms, 
your  mines  will  go,  we  will  give  them 
back  to  Nature  again  and  see  what 
Nature  will  do.  But  nothing  of  this  sort 
was  done.  They  could  not  have  com- 
plained, one  party  more  than  the  other, 
but  this  was  not  the  case.  They  went  to 
their  employers,  and  they  said,  grant  vts 
the  eight-hour  day  and  we  will  stay  at 
the  pumps,  we  will  stay  at  the  engines, 
we  will  fire  them,  we  will  attend  to  the 
mines  while  our  brethren  are  on  a 
strike. 

Well,  if  these  people  had  failed  to  take 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


that  opportunity  to  gain  such  a righteous 
thing  as  an  eight-hour  day,  to  my  mind 
they  would  not  have  had  the  intelligence 
necessary  for  American  citizens.  If  they 
had  failed  at  this  time  to  improve  their 
condition  when  it  was  auspicious,  it 
would  have  shown  they  had  been  driven 
to  those  depths  of  desperation  that  they 
would  not  know  when  to  claim  their 
rights. 

Recognition  the  Stumbling  Block. 

How  did  these  gentlemen  meet  them? 
They  met  them  with  contempt.  Did  they 
do  it  because  they  refused  the  eight-hour 
day?  Ob,  no.  Counsel  in  this  case  say 
to  this  commission  now  that  the  firemen 
ought  to  have  an  eight-hour  day.  They 
said  that  much,  after  all  these  long, 
weary  months.  Neither  do  they  serious- 
ly object,  I take  it,  to  the  engineers  hav- 
ing an  eight-hour  day,  or  the  pump-men 
too.  All  of  them  concede  the  firemen 
should  have  it.  These  gentlemen  did  not 
refuse  to  give  these  men  the  eight-hour 
day  because  of  the  wages,  because  of  the 
extra  shift,  because  they  could  not  afford 
it.  Oh,  no.  When  I pressed  Mr.  Rose 
for  an  answer,  he  said,  we  refused  to 
grant  the  eight-hour  day  because  we  did 
not  wish  to  recognize  the  union,  and 
would  sooner  let  our  mines  fill  up.  Think 
of  it!  These  gentlemen,  when  met  by 
their  employes  like  honest  business  men, 
and  were  told  they  would  protect  their 
mines  during  the  days  of  this  trouble 
and  strike,  if  they  were  granted  an  eight- 
hour  day,  said  no,  rather  than  do  that, 
we  will  send  to  the  four  corners  of  the 
earth  and  bring,  what  Brother  Burns 
characterizes  as  the  scum  and  the  off- 
scourings of  creation  to  run  our  busi- 
ness, because  we  are  thick-necked  and 
pig-headed,  and  that  was  all  there  was  rf 
it.  In  one  case,  in  spite  of  Mr.  Baer's 
declaration,  it  has  been  shown  in  the  evi- 
dence where  this  request  was  granted, 
and  only  one.  In  one  or  two  instances 
they  were  willing  to  grant  it  to  the  fire- 
men, but  not  to  the  engineers.  With 
their  old  stubbornness,  their  old  wilfu'- 
ness,  they  had  rather  see  their  property 
destroyed  than  to  concede  that  the  men 
In  their  employ  were  human  beings,  wi  h 
a human  mind,  with  a human  soul.  Just 
one  man  granted  it.  Mr.  Kemmerer  wes 
away,  I believe,  on  his  yacht,  and  it’s 
superintendent  was  in  charge,  and  1 e 
seemed  to  have  been  a fairly  sensible 
man,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  was  a 
boss.  This  was  an  old  mine,  pretty  ne;  r 
worked  out.  I think  nine-tenths  of  it 
was  worked  out  and  the  boss  understood 
that  if  the  mine  filled  up  it  would  neve  r 
pay  to  pump  it  out.  There  was  not  coal 
enough  left.  So,  in  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Kemmerer,  he  granted  the  eight-hour  day 
to  his  firemen,  pump-men  and  engineers, 
and  they  stayed  at  work  and  worked  for 
seventeen  days.  Then  Mr.  Lehigh  Valley 
and  Mr  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Com- 
pany, and  Mr.  Baer,  and  Mr.  Tom,  Dick 
and  Harry,  charged  with  this  importart 
business  of  managing  their  own  affairs 
and  the  Lords’,  these  gentlemen  came  to 
him  and  said:  "Oh,  you  can’t  do  it.  Ch 
no.  You  are  ruining  our  business  if  you 
ever  consent  to  deal  with  these  men." 
They  came  to  this  man,  the  only  man  in 
the  region  who  had  shown  breadth,  and 
sense,  and  conscience  and  mind,  they 
came  to  him  and  said:  "No,  you  must 
not  do  it.”  And  it  got  into  the  papeis, 
and  Mr.  Kemmerer  or.e  day  sailed  h’s 
yacht  tip  to  Philadelphia,  and  I assume 
he  must  have  moored  It  somewhere  in 
front  of  Mr.  Baer's  office,  and  the  word 
went  out  to  discharge  the  firemen  and 


engineers,  and  let  the  mines  fill  up,  ard 
they  did  it.  And  now  they  come  to  this 
court,  like  little  children,  with  their 
eontemptible  talk”  that  these  men  who 
were  striking  for  their  liberty  and  ga\  e 
them  a notice  they  did  not  deserve,  ard 
demanded  rights  that  were  their  due, 
these  men.  who  reasoned  with  them  a:  d 
sought  to  save  them,  and  protect  them, 
they  say  these  men  were  to  blame,  be- 
cause in  their  blind  and  stupid  preju- 
dice they  destroyed  their  own  property. 
That  lie  has  traveled  up  and  down  the 
country  from  the  day  this  strike  com- 
menced until  now.  It  is  not  only  fals? 
and  untrue  in  its  every  statement,  but  it 
is  about  as  cowardly  as  anything  that 
can  be  conceived.  If  these  gentlemen 
were  stupid  enough  to  let  their  mines 
fill  up  with  water,  rather  than  grant  this 
eight-hour  day.  all  right.  But  keep  sti.l 
about  it.  After  you  have  done  it,  the 
more  you  talk  of  it.  the  more  contempti- 
ble It  makes  you  look  in  the  eyes  of  all 
men  who  think. 

[Here  adjournment  was  taken  until  the 
following  day.] 

An  Argument  on  Delusions. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Last  night,  before  clos- 
ing, I discussed  one  of  the  great  delu- 
sions under  which  these  operators  have 
suffered,  and  made  the  country  suffer, 
during  all  these  months.  A good  many 
of  our  troubles  in  this  world  are  due  to 
mental  condition;  and  some  of  the  opera- 
tors’ troubles,  and  possibly  some  of  ti  e 
miners’  troubles,  have  been  due  to  the 
same  causes. 

I have  done  the  best  I could,  in  my 
humble  way,  to  relieve  these  operators  of 
some  of  the  delusions  they  have  been 
laboring  under  since  this  strike  began ; 
but  I find,  on  listening  to  Mr.  Baer's 
speech,  that  my  efforts  in  most  directions 
seem  to  have  been  in  vain.  Het informs 
this  commission,  in  the  same  attitude 
that  the  operators  have  used  since  tl  e 
beginning  of  this  strike,  that  we.  147,0t'0 
irresponsible  miners— irresponsible,  as  Mr. 
Baer  says,  because  we  have  net  any 
property  and  therefore  cannot  be  made 
responsible  by  the  laws  of  the  land — 
that  we,  a parcel  of  Huns  and  Goths  and 
Vandals,  men  who  cannot  speak  the  Eng- 
lish language,  and  boys  who  do  not  lo\  e 
discipline — that  we  are  responsible  fi  r 
the  coal  famine,  through  which  we  have 
passed  and  are  passing  today. 

Mr.  Baer  had  a right,  and  should  have 
been  given  the  privilege,  as  he  was,  to 
state  his  views  and  let  the  country  have 
the  benefit  of  them.  But  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  coal  famine  rests  upon 
those  people  who  were  really  responsible 
for  this  strike.  If  the  cause  of  the 
miners  was  ill-advised  or  wrong,  or  if 
they  struck  without  any  just  grievance, 
they  are  responsible.  If.  on  the  other 
hand,  their  grievances  were  just,  their 
demands  were  reasonable  their  attitude 
was  that  of  rational  men,  considering  not 
themselves  alone  but  their  duties  to  so- 
ciety—and  every  man  must  consider  that, 
regardless  of  what  the  dead  letter  of  tl  e 
law  may  be:  if  their  attitude  was  broad- 
minded and  just  and  fair,  and  the  opera- 
tors, through  blind  and  stupid  prejudice 
refused  to  deal  with  them  and  to  accede 
to  their  commands,  and  this  strike  re- 
sulted, then  the  blame  is  upon  them,  and 
nc  < upon  us. 

Our  clients  have  suffered  through  this 
strike.  \Ve  did  not  have  any  coal  to  sell, 
and  we  have  not  been  able  to  double  the 
price  on  one  commodity  which  these  men 
disposed  of  to  the  highest  bidder.  They 
have  used  these  winter  months  to  recoup 


mine  strike  commission 


249 


themselves  for  the  losses  they  have  sus- 
tained on  account  of  our  just  demands. 
We  have  had  no  such  chance. 

I wish  this  morning  to  investigate  the 
question  as  to  who  was  responsible  for 
this  strike — whether  the  miners  can  be 
charged  with  causing  a coal  famine,  ( r 
whether  the  operators  are  the  men  whom 
this  country  rightly  holds  responsible  for 
the  high  prices,  the  great  need,  the  fam- 
ishing conditions  through  which  we  hai  e 
passed. 

Responsibility  for  the  Strike. 

I want  to  say  that  this  strike,  frcm 
first  to  last,  was  due  to  the  blind,  auto- 
cratic, stupid  spirit  of  these  operato  s, 
that  their  men  should  not  organize — 
nothing  else.  It  was  not  because  th  y 
thought  they  should  have  no  more  money, 
for  I am  inclined  to  think  that  these 
gentlemen  would  have  raised  the  wages 
by  this  time,  strike  or  no  strike.  At 
least,  they  came  into  this  court,  ore 
after  the  other,  and  practically  con- 
ceded that  they  should  have  raised  them, 
and  should  now  raise  them.  They  were 
not  willing  to  do  it  then;  but  I cannct 
understand  how  Mr.  Baer,  as  president 
of  the  Reading  railroad,  can  raise  h s 
wages,  and  how  the  president  of  tl  e 
Pennsylvania  railroad  can  raise  his, 
when  they  are  dealing  with  the  rail- 
roads, and  still  say  that  these  men,  in- 
finitely poorer  paid,  in  an  employment 
generally  more  dangerous,  in  an  occupa- 
tion certainly  more  disagreeable  ard 
onerous,  should  have  no  share  in  the  in- 
creased prosperity  which  has  come  to 
them,  and  which  has  come  to  the  com- 
mon country. 

It  was  not,  then,  the  question  of  wages. 
These  gentlemen  precipitated  this  great- 
est conflict  between  capital  and  labor 
which  the  world  has  ever  seen,  this 
most  gigantic  strike  in  iiistory,  because, 
in  their  minds,  it  was  a question  of  mas- 
tery— nothing  else;  because  they  felt  and 
they  believed  that  upon  this  contest  de- 
pended the  question  of  whether  they 
should  be  the  masters  or  whether  ti  e 
men  should  be  the  masters.  Neither 
should  be  the  result  of  this  contest. 
They,  with  their  feudal  ideas  that  the 
men,  who,  in  some  mysterious  way,  have 
been  placed  in  the  ownership  and  tl  e 
possession  of  industry  are  the  masters, 
that  they  have  the  right  to  make  tl  e 
rules  and  the  regulations  and  set  tl  e 
wages— set  them,  as  I will  show  they  d d 
in  this  case,  by  nailing  their  schedule  tn 
si  dcor — and  they  who  believe  that  for 
one  moment  to  accede  to  the  demands 
and  requests  of  these  men  would  mean 
that  they  were  no  longer  the  masters, 
and  therefore  that  they  had  better  de- 
stroy thir  property  rather  than  submit. 
Neither  can  I believe  that  this  was  en- 
tirely due  to  the  mine  owners.  When  I 
consider  that  they  were  willing  to  take 
these  fearful  chances,  to  let  the  country 
face  this  coal  famine,  to  let  their  mines 
be  destroyed,  I see  in  this  stubborn,  cruel 
fight,  where  the  weapon  used  by  the 
operators  was  starvation,  where  they  de- 
pended not  upon  starving  men  alone,  but 
expected  that  the  men  would  listen  to 
the  starving  cries  of  wives  and  children, 
to  give  up  this  struggle — I believe  the 
operators  were  induced  and  urged  by  the 
railroad  companies  to  believe  that  here 
in  the  coal  region  was  the  final  struggle 
to  determine  who  were  the  masters  in 
this  country,  whether  the  men  were  chat- 
tels, or  whether  they  were  men,  en- 
dowed with  the  same  right  to  look  the 
other  contracting  party  squarely  in  the 
face,  the  same  right  to  make  their  own 


terms  as  to  the  hours  of  labor,  the  days 
of  labor,  the  price  of  labor,  when  they 
are  selling  their  lives,  as  the  master 
does  when  he  is  buying  the  laborer’s  life. 
This  was  'the  struggle,  and  this  was  the 
cause,  and  I wish  to  prove  this  matter 
to  this  commission,  not  from  our  testi- 
mony but  from  these  gentlemen  alone.  I 
prove  it  from  their  own  mouths,  and 
place  the  responsibility  where  it  belong  s 
—upon  these  men,  who  cannot  understand 
that  the  human  race,  through  its  long, 
sore  and  bitter  travail,  has  been  mov- 
ing onward  and  upward  and  forward  to- 
ward the  final  democracy  of  man,  to  the 
time  when  each  human  being  shall  be  a 
man,  clothed  with  the  right  to  contract , 
with  the  right  to  live  his  life,  not  to  be 
governed  and  ruled  by  such  rules  as  t e 
masters  have  ever  imposed  upon  them. 

Now,  to  begin  with,  these  gentlemen, 
and  to  give  one  illustration  of  where 
this  matter  really  begins.  I read  to  this 
commission  the  indictment  of  the  opera- 
tors drawn  by  an  operator — the  indict- 
ment of  the  late  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  of  the 
conditions  in  the  anthracite  regions  dur- 
ing those  halcyon  days  of  which  these 
operators  are  so  fond  of  talking,  the 
days  when  they  had  loyalty,  and  wh  n 
they  had  discipline.  How  these  opera- 
tors do  lo-ve  that  word  discipline!  They 
love  it  as  the  slave-holder  loved  it.  when 
he  raised  the  lash  above  the  bare  back 
of  the  slave.  Those  were  the  days  when 
they  had  discipline;  and  in  those  days, 
says  Mr.  Hewitt,  these  operators  had 
their  service  subject  to  such  disciplire 
that  the  men  who  went  down  into  the 
mines  and  dug  up  the  wealth  for  them 
were  living  like  pigs  and  like  dogs.  Ar.d 
then  Mr.  Mitchell  came  into  this  region. 
Now,  agitators  never  make  revolutions. 
They  are  made  by  the  other  people  en- 
tirely. All  the  pamphlets  of  all  the 
dreamers  and  all  the  agitators  in  t!  e 
days  preceding  the  French  Revoluticn 
amounted  to  nothing.  It  was  the  tyran- 
ny of  kings  and  princes,  the  blind,  lavish 
expenditures  of  the  rich  and  great, 
wrung  from  the  labor  of  the  poor,  that 
gave  root  to  the  words  of  the  agitator. 
So  Mr.  Mitchell  and  his  "paid  agitators,’’ 
as  these  gentlemen  who  work  for  noth- 
ing are  so  fond  of  characterizing  them 
(laughter)— Mr.  Mitchell  and  his  paid  agi- 
tators could  never  have  come  into  the 
mining  region  and  rallied  these  pigs, 
these  men  who  lived  as  pigs  and  dogs, 
according  to  Mr.  Hewitt,  excepting 
through  a long  series  of  years  they  had 
been  compelled  to  live  as  pigs  and  dogs. 
Loyalty  to  these  .bosses  could  never 
come  with  a whip  or  with  starvation.  It 
could  only  come  through  just  treatment, 
and  the  recognition  of  common,  fair, 
honest  rights. 

These  gentlemen  charged  with  the 
management  of  these  great  interests  did 
not  desire  to  see  Mr.  Mitchell  come.  The 
evidence  of  this  from  their  own  mouths 
Is  overwhelming.  Away  back  in  1887,  af- 
ter the  strike  of  1886,  the  congressional 
committee  investigating  this  region 
called  on  Mr.  Whiting,  then  the  superin- 
tendent of  the  Reading  Railroad  com- 
pany, before  the  days  of  Mr.  Baer,  ard 
they  asked  him  what  he  thought  about 
labor  organizations,  and  the  organizing 
of  men  in  the  anthracite  region;  and  this 
was  Mr.  Whiting's  idea  then: 

The  Stubborn  Spirit. 

"Q.  You  say  these  striking  men  will 
come  back  and  go  to  work? 

“A  Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  On  your  own  terms? 

"A.  At  the  old  rate;  yes,  sir. 


- "Q.  What  force  do  you  rely  on  to  bring 

them  back? 

"A.  Well,  sir,  their  necessities. 

“Q.  Starved  out,  do  you  mean? 

"A  I did  not  say  we  would  keep  them 
out  until  they  starved.  I do  not  propo.  e 
to  put  it  in  that  shape.” 

He  speaks  too  good  English.  (Laugh- 
ter.) I am  reading  from  the  congres- 
sional report. 

"Q.  After  their  necessity  has  become 
sufficiently  pressing? 

“A.  It  is  a necessity  for  everybody  wl  o 
works  that  thpy  get  work.” 

And  then  Calvin  Pardee  is  questioned. 
Calvin  Pardee  has  passed  on,  but  he  has 
left  his  mines,  and  his  children  operate 
them  in  his  place. 

“Q.  Do  you  expect  them  to  return  to 
work? 

“A.  We  expect  them  some  day  to  le 
turn  to  work.  Perhaps  our  patience  w 11 
wear  out  one  of  these  days  in  this  mat- 
ter. 

“Q.  When  do  you  expect  this  strike  to 
stop? 

“A.  I suppose  when  the  men  get  enough 
of  it.” 

Mr.  Ariel  Pardee— I think,  perhaps,  Cal- 
vin Pardee  is  still  here,  and  Mr.  Ariel 
Pardee  is  the  one  who  has  passed  away 
—but,  anyhow  they  are  Pardees.  There 
is  a Pardee  a party  to  this  case.  Mr. 
Ariel  Pardee,  the  largest  operator  in  this 
locality,  emphasized  the  strike  and  or- 
ganization as  such. 

“Q.  Will  you  state  the  cause  of  the 
strike  in  the  Lehigh  region. 

“A.  I suppose  the  cause  of  it  was  that 
the  operators  would  have  nothing  to  i o 

with  the Knights  of  Labor  and  the 

leaders  of  the  Amalgamated  union ; I 
suppose  that  was  the  cause  of  it. 

"Q.  You  mean  to  say  the  men  strurk 
because  the  operators  would  not  ha\  e 
anything  to  do  with  their  organization? 

“A.  We  would  not  negotiate  with  them 
at  all.  We  have  always  been  willing  to 
deal  with  our  employes,  or  a committ  e 
of  our  own  employes,  but  we  will  n t 
deal  with  the  officers  of  these  associ  - 
tions. 

“Q.  Now.  I want  to  know,  if  the  e 
men,  in  fact,  did  have  cause  to  complain, 
would  you  object  to  confer  with  them? 

“A.  No,  not  with  our  employes. 

"Q.  Would  you  object  to  conferrirg 
with  them,  even  if  they  came  as  repu - 
senting  some  organized  body? 

"A.  I would  not  deal  with  them  at  a’l 

“Q.  Suppose  the  employes  of  these 
mines  should  organize,  would  you  refu:  e 
to  confer  with  them  in  that  capacity? 

"A.  I am  not  dealing  with  any  organiza- 
tion, or  the  leaders  of  any  organization. 

“Q.  Suppose  that  an  association  com- 
posed exclusively  of  your  emplojes 
should  send  representatives  to  you  in 
behalf  of  the  men,  would  you  treat  wi.h 
I hem? 

"A.  If  they  will  come  as  our  employ  s 
I would  treat  with  them,  but  as  repre- 
senting an  organization.  I would  not. 

“Q.  Wrhy ? 

"A.  Simply  because  I would  not.  I 
have  been  in  a chronic  fight  with  th  s 
organization.  I commenced  in  1817. 

"Q.  Then,  before  you  will  treat  with 
them  they  must  come  in  their  Individual 
capacity? 

"A.  In  their  individual  capacity,  or  as 
a committee  of  our  own  men,  and  not  as 
a committee  of  any  association. 

"Q.  If  the  men  now  on  strike  should 
go  to  work  upon  an  agreement  to  take 
the  wages  paid  in  the  other  districts, 
would  the  operators  of  this  district  enter 
into  any  such  an  agreement  with  them? 


250 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


"A.  Not  under  the  management  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor  or  the  Amalgamated 
union. 

■‘Q.  Then  you  will  not  take  your  own 
terms  at  the  hands  of  the  Knights  of 
Labor? 

“A.  No,  we  will  not  give  them  a foot- 
hold.” 

Have  Not  Changed. 

Now,  Ariel  Pardee  has  been  gathered 
to  his  fathers,  and  twenty  years  have 
rolled  away,  and  these  men  have  learned 
nothing  in  all  these  twenty  years.  They 
are  the  men  who  declare  that  the  woild 
stands  still  and  the  sun  goes  around  it, 
and  characterize  as  dreamers  and  vision- 
aries all  who  see  any  new  light,  or  ha\  e 
any  new  theories,  or  new  aspirations,  not 
new,  but  any  aspirations  for  bettering 
the  condition  of  their  fellow  men.  When 
this  strike  began,  almost  twenty  years 
later,  we  find  these  operators  still  in  the 
condition  of  Ariel  Pardee;  they  would 
deal  with  their  own  employes,  but  they 
would  not  deal,  they  would  not  think  of 
dealing,  even  upon  their  own  terms,  with 
any  labor  organization,  labor  union,  or 
agent,  unless  that  agent  worked  for 
them. 

Let  us  put  it  concretely.  Mr.  John 
Markle,  one  of  the  chief  figures  in  th  s 
great  drama,  leases  a house  to  James 
Gallagher,  who  worked  for  him.  He  has 
a lease  such  as  I never  saw  before,  or 
read  of,  or  heard  of  in  my  studies,  in 
some  regards.  He  rents  a house  for  fif- 
teen and  a half  cents  a day.  There  may 
have  been  other  leases  such  as  that,  but 
I never  heard  of  one.  I think  I am  on 
safe  ground  there.  I have  made  some 
inquiry  as  to  whether  any  human  being 
ever  leased  a house  hv  the  day.  Why,  .t 
is  about  as  much  as  you  want  to  do  to 
go  to  a hotel  with  your  trunk,  or  your 
valise,  and  rent  it  by  the  day,  where  ycu 
do  not  have  to  anchor  a cook  stove  or 
take  in  your  own  folding  bed.  But  Mr. 
Markle,  in  order,  as  his  astute  couns  1 
says,  that  he  may  have  room  for  the 
men  who  really  work  for  him,  in  case  of 
necessity,  and  I have  no  doubt  that  is  the 
reason  he  draws  a lease  at  fifteen  and  a 
half  cents  a day— I am  not  complaining 
of  the  price— a day's  notice  is  pretty 
short  to  move  a family,  but  the  terms  cf 
the  lease  are  even  more  stringent  than 
that.  Lest  there  be  any  mistake,  lest 
the  subtleties  of  the  lawyer,  or  the  sub- 
tleties of  the  judge  might  help  out  the 
tenant,  he  does  not  lease  it  for  any  term 
but  he  leases  it  at  the  will  and  pleasure 
of  John  Markle.  If  anybody  can  tel 
what  that  Is,  he  can  do  better  than  I 
can  after  all  my  acquaintance  with  the 
will  and  pleasure  oft  John  Markle.  I 
know  something  about  his  will,  but  I do 
not  know  anything  at  all  about  his 
pleasure,  unless  he  got  pleasure  from 
evicting  these  thirteen  men.  Mr.  John 
Markle  has  had  a great  deal  to  say  in 
this  controversy,  and  I have  not  ary 
feeling  against  Mr.  John  Markle,  as  Mr. 
John  Markle.  I have  no  doubt,  as  he 
sees  right  and  wrong,  he  is  as  good  a 
man  as  1 am  and  intends  to  do  as  near 
right  as  I do.  My  quarrel  is  with  Mr. 
John  Markle’ s ideas,  and  what  he  makes 
of  them.  He  probably  acts  up  to  his 
highest  light,  and  that  is  all  that  is 
given  to  any  human  being  to  do.  My 
criticism  Is  not  of  him,  but  it  is  of  hie 
position  in  this  case,  and  his  position  as 
the  overseer  of  his  men. 

John  Markle. 

Mr.  John  Markle  then  says  to  his  men, 
“I  will  not  deal,  or  negotiate,  with  any 


one  of  you  for  wages,  unless  you  are  in 
my  employ,  which  means  renting  my 
house  at  my  will  and  pleasure  at  15% 
cents  a day.” 

Now,  then,  I have  ■ no  doubt  that  a 
situation  like  that  would  conduce  to  the 
Independence  of  the  contracting  parties. 

I once  in  a while  put  up  with  some  in- 
convenience at  a hotel.  I have  made  up 
my  mind  I would  strike  for  ice  water, 
or  soft  boiled  eggs,  or  something  of  that 
kind,  but  then  when  I thought  a strike 
would  result  in  my  having  to  pack  up 
my  valise  and  carry  it  over  to  some 
hotel  on  twenty-four  hours'  notice,  I 
continued  to  put  up  with  the  discomfort. 
But  here  is  a man  who  has  his  house- 
hold goods  and  his  household  gods  all  in 
one  palatial  residence,  §uch  as  they  fur- 
nish our  clients  down  there,  and  if  you 
do  not  believe  it,  read  the  statistics  of 
the  expert  accountants,  and  they  give 
him  his  job.  There  is  nobody  else  with- 
in seven  or  eight  miles  that  he  can  woik 
for,  and  no  other  house,  within  two  c r 
three  miles,  that  he  could  move  into. 
They  say  to  him:  "We  will  negotiate 

with  you,  because  you  are  in  a condition 
that  if  you  make  us  any  troub.e  we  can 
get  rid  of  you  in  just  about  a minute, 
and  we  will  send  our  general  superin- 
tendent to  help  you  set  you  cook  stove 
out  in  the  street — your  cook  stove  and 
your  sauer  kraut.”  That  was  the  cond.- 
dition  of  these  gentlemen  in  the  houses 
in  the  days  they  think  so  much  of.  and 
which  they  pray  this  commission  to  re- 
store to  them  once  again.  They  had  i o 
objection  to  dealing  with  their  employes, 
but  they  could  not  deal  wi.h  the  m n 
who  did  not  work  for  them.  Their  em- 
ployes could  choose  an  agent,  but  the 
agent  must  work  for  them.  They  do  not 
want  any  divided  allegiance,  that  is,  the 
agent  must  work  for  both  parties,  but 
especially  for  the  employer.  So,  this  was 
the  condition  of  things  when  the  nego- 
tiations for  this  demand  begun. 

In  Campaign  Year. 

Let  us  see  how  it  came  about.  Mr. 
Mitchell  and  his  paid  agitators  had  come 
down  here  in  WOO.  They  had  forced  this 
peaceable,  contented  community  to  de- 
mand higher  wages.  Held  them  up  at 
the  end  of  a bludgeon  to  help  better  their 
conditions.  They  came  down  in  1900,  and, 
as  the  operators  say,  at  a time— an  in- 
opportune time — when  our  Democratic 
friend,  Mr.  Baer,  was  very  anxious  to 
have  Mr.  McKinley  elected  president  of 
the  United  States.  Newspapeis  out  our 
way  all  say  he  is  a Democrat,  so  I pre- 
sume I may  quote  it;  that  is,  all  the 
Republican  papers  say  so.  Our  people  do 
not  claim  him,  but  the  Republicans  give 
him  to  us.  Anyhow,  he  and  the  other 
operators,  and  I am  not  quarreling  wiih 
their  politics  or  their  religion,  it  is  only 
with  their  method  of  doing  business,  they 
say  they  were  stood  up  right  on  the  eve 
of  a presidential  election,  and  they  re- 
luctantly granted  this  ten  per  cent., 
whether  they  got  reimbursed  out  of  the 
campaign  found  I do  not  know,  anyway, 
our  people  got  it— a large  share  of  it.  It 
took  this  strike,  however,  of  three 
months  or  two  months— how  long  was  it? 

Mr.  James  H.  Shea:  Six  weeks. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Six  weeks— it  is  strange  I 
got  that  wrong.  It  took  this  strike  of 
six  weeks  in  order  to  accomplish  th  s 
much.  And  here,  let  me  call  you  atten- 
tion to  another  matter,  which  shows  how 
kind  and  generous  these  men  have  been 
in  dealing  with  their  own  employes. 
These  men,  when  they  go  down  in  th* 
mine  to  shoot  out  the  coal  upon  which 


they  base  their  money  and  their  stock* 
and  their  bonds,  have  to  have  powder. 
The  owners  do  not  furnish  it  to  them, 
but  they  sell  it  to  them.  The  powder 
costs  the  owners  about  $1.10  in  cash—  a 
member  of  this  commission  says  from  a 
dollar  and  even  ninety  cents  up  to  a dol- 
lar and  a quarter.  We  will  call  it  $1.12%; 
we  do  not  want  to  give  them  too  much 
advantage.  They  were  selling  this  pow- 
der to  these  miners,  who  took  the  kegs 
of  powder  on  their  shoulders  and  we;  t 
down  to  blast  out  the  coal  for  them,  for 
$2.75  a keg  when  it  cost  them  $1.12.  A 
very  comfortable  profit  that  was.  gentle- 
men, that  you  have  been  imposing  up_n 
these  miners  for  all  these  years.  And  it 
took  a six  weeks’  strike  for  them  to  le- 
duce  the  price  of  this  commodiiy,  which 
cost  them  $1.10,  from  $2.75  to  $1.5). 

The  thriftiness  of  these  gentlemen  in 
the  pjrwder  matter  is  only  excelled  by 
the  thriftiness  of  Mr.  Baer  in  the  propo- 
sition which  he  made  to  this  commis- 
sion yesterday,  to  show  his  generosity. 
And  let  me  refer  to  that  for  a moment. 

Baer’s  Sliding  Scale. 

These  men  have  a habit  of  figuring 
everything  their  way.  That  is  what 
makes  a man  thrifty,  I take  it.  If  I do 
not  get  rich  after  I leave  these  regions, 
from  my  association  with  these  gent  e- 
men,  it  will  be  my  own  fault.  (Laughter 
and  applause.)  I do  not  know  that  it  is 
deliberate;  I am  inclined  to  think  that 
Mr.  Baer  believed  he  made  us  a nice, 
fair,  generous  proposition  yesterday.  Let 
me  show  it  to  you  for  a minute,  and  see 
what  he  thinks  about  the  relations  be- 
tween capital  and  labor  and  common 
honesty. 

He  told  this  commission  that  the  labor 
required  to  mine  coal  cost  about  $1.(10  a 
ton.  Now,  I will  prove  after  a whiie  that 
he  is  too  high  there — that  is.  if  I get  to 
it.  If  I do  not,  I hope  the  commission 
will  excuse  me  from  finishing  my  ad- 
dress; because  I am  only  going  to  take 
today.  I know  General  Wilson  is  sorry, 
but  I am  going  to  finish  today. 

Commissioner  Wilson:  There  is  no  one 
to  whom  I listen  with  more  pleasure,  Mr. 
Darrow. 

Mr.  Darrow;  Thank  you.  general:  you 
are  very  kind.  But  I want  to  refer  to 
this  right  now. 

He  informed  us  that  when  a ton  < f 
coal  was  brought  up  out  of  the  earth 
and  put  in  the  big  car,  it  had  cost  the 
company  $1.60.  Now,  we  will  assume  the 
freight  is  about  $1.50.  The  evidence  in 
this  case,  I think,  shows  that  it  is  $1  50. 
I suppose  it  is  worth  about  sixty  cents, 
but  we  will  let  that  pass.  Let  us  as- 
sume that  it  is  $1.50.  He  proposed  to 
make  this  schedule  on  a basis  of  $1.50. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Baer  said,  taking 
his  words  as  we  have  them  down  here, 
that  coal  cost  about  $2  on  the  car— $1.15 
for  labor,  and  the  rest  for  material  and 
other  expenses,  which  were  reckoned  in 
to  make  the  cost. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Was  not  the  $1.60  for 
labor  and  the  rest  for  materials? 

Commissioner  Wilson:  $1.45. 

Mr.  Darrow:  $1.15? 

Commissioner  Wilson:  Yes:  1 took  it 
down  at  the  time  he  said  it. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I was  going  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  other  matter;  but  my  pur- 
pose is  not  to — 

The  Chairman:  We  simply  want  to  get 
it  right.  This  is  for  argument;  that  is 
all. 

Mr.  Darrow,  Then  we  will  call  it  $1  15. 

The  Chairman:  For  labor? 

Mr.  Darrow:  For  labor;  that  is  the 


only  part  I am  interested  In  in  this  mat- 
ter. Then  there  were  other  things — the 
cost  of  material,  which  I assume  is 
royalty,  although  it  may  be  other  things, 
Loo— which  bring  it  up  to  $2;  but  in  that 
part  I am  not  interested.  The  freight 
rate  is  about  $1.50,  but  we  will  call  it  a 
dollar,  for  his  benefit,  as  you  will  see 
when  my  figures  are  done.  We  will  as- 
sume that  the  material  and  freight  rates 
are  $1.50.  This  scale  was  made  on  the 
basis  of  $4.50— that  he  would  pay  the 
present  price  at  $4.50  a ton,  and  whenever 
the  price  rose-  fifty  cents  he  would  give 
the  miners  a fifth  of  it,  or  whenever  it 
rose  five  cents,  he  would  give  them  one 
cent.  That  is,  he  would  let  us  run  off 
with  one  cent  while  he  retained  four. 

The  Chairman:  One  per  cent. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I take  it  it  was  ten  cents. 

The  Chairman:  He  said  one  per  cent. 
I do  not  know  what  he  meant,  but  he 
said  one  per  cent. 

Mr.  McCarthy:  Yes;  one  per  cent. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Well,  one  per  cent.,  I 
take  it,  would  figure  out  even  much  less. 

The  Chairman:  That  may  be;  but  I am 
just  stating  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Well,  I understood  it  to 
be  one  cent:  that  is,  if  the  price  rose  fifty 
cents,  he  would  raise  the  wages  ten 
cents. 

Commission  Wright:  That  would  be 
twenty  per  cent. 

(After  a conference  between  Mr.  Dar- 
row and  his  associates). 

The  Chairman:  We  want  to  get  the 
basis  of  our  calculations  right. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I want  it  right,  I am 
sure. 

The  Chairman:  Yes;  I know  you  do. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Now,  I am  not  now  mak- 
ing my  discussion  to  all  the  objections  to 
this  proposition,  but  am  merely  endea- 
voring to  show  their  dealings  and  de- 
mands. It  figures  up  a little  less  than 
one  and  a naif  cents  in  five.  Assuming 
that  the  freieht.  rate  and  the  royalty  is 
$1.50— it  is  more  than  that,  according  to 
their  own  figures;  it  is  nearly  $2 — but  put- 
ting it  dpwn  to  $1.50  out  of  the  $4.50,  that 
leaves  $3  to  be  divided  between  the 
miner  and  the  operator.  Three  dollars, 
assuming  that  it  costs  them  $1.50  a ten 
to  pay  the  royalty  and  to  pay  the  freight 
from  the  mine  down  to  the  water,  and 
they  get  $4.50  at  tide  water.  That  leaves 
$3  to  be  divided  between  the  miner  and 
the  operator. 

Commission  Watkins:  To  be  perfectly 
fair,  Mr.  Darrow,  I think  it  has  been 
shown  that  forty  per  cent,  of  it  is  sold 
at  from  $1.75  to,  say,  $3.50. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes;  but  our  basis  is  not 
made  on  that. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  Your  basis  is 
on  the  price  of  the  sizes  above  pea  coal. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes;  but  we  are  not  get- 
ting anything  at  all  for  the  small  coal,  I 
take  it. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  Well,  on  that 
basis,  In  getting  at  the  cost,  if  you  want 
to  figure  the  cost  of  the  coal  above  the 
prepared  sizes  on  which  the  rates  are 
made,  you  will  have  to  take  a higher 
figure  of  cost,  because  there  is  a loss  on 
a certain  amount  of  those  sizes. 

Mr.  Darrow:  This  basis  is  made  upon 
white  ash  coal,  is  it  not? 

Commissioner  Watkins:  Yes;  that  is 
about  eighty  per  cent,  of  the  output. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  the  cheapest  coal, 
or  about  one  of  the  cheapest  coals  that 
there  is  in  the  market. 

Commissioner  Watkins:  I think  about 
eighty  per  cent,  of  all  the  anthracite  coal 
is  white  ash. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

Mr.  Darrow:  Well,  assuming  all  that, 
of  course  according  to  their  rate  of  $1.60, 
they  only  get  about  $2.50  at  the  mines 
for  the  coal,  and  claim  that  the  labor 
costs  $1.40.  But  to  make  it  $1.50,  it  leaves 
$3  for  the  cost  of  the  coal— half  to  the 
operator  and  half  to  the  miner.  That  is, 
the  operator  proposes  to,  or  does,  ac- 
cording to  their  computation,  take  as 
much  profit  as  the  miner  gets  for  his 
work. 

Miner  Equally  Interested. 

I am  not  at  this  time  quarreling  with 
that  proposition.  Let  that  go.  But  the 
miner,  up  to  the  $4.50  point,  is  at  least 
equally  interested  in  the  cost  of  the  coal. 
The  operator  is  not  proposing  to  take  but 
half;  and  if  the  freight  rates  are  just  at 
$3.50,  he  is  taking  much  less  than  half. 
He  is  taking  about  fifty  or  sixty  cents 
where  the  miner  gets  $1.50.  But,  assume 
that  he  is  taking  half — he  would  not  ad- 
mit that  he  was  taking  over  a third  or  a 
quarter;  and  yet  he  says  that  if  there  is 
any  rise  in  this  price  he  will  give  us  one 
and  a half  cents  out  of  every  five  in  the 
rise,  and  he  will  put  three  and  a half 
cents  in  his  pocket.  That  is,  these  gen- 
tlemen will  take  more  than  two  and  a 
half  times  as  much  of  the  profit  on  every 
rise  as  the  miners,  who  go  down  in  the 
ground  and  do  the  work.  This  is  their 
just  system  of  profit-sharing,  and  the 
sliding  scale! 

Under  the  figures  that  they  furnish,  it 
is  much  stronger  than  this.  There  is 
not  one  single  operator  in  this  case  who 
would  admit  that  he  got  as  much  profit 
for  his  coal  as  $1.50  a ton.  If  he  only 
got  a dollar  profit  for  his  coal,  then,  up 
to  $4.50;  we  are  getting  about  three  cents 
where  they  are  getting  two.  And  now 
Mr.  Baer  says,  “If  it  rises  above  $4.50, 
give  us  three  and  a half  cents,  while  you 
get  one  and  a half  cents.  Give  us  all, 
beca.use,  forsooth,  we  own  the  mines,  and 
we  have  our  wonderful  money  invested, 
and  you  have  not  anything  on  earth  in- 
vested except  your  labor,  which  is  your 
life.’’ 

This  is  simply  the  thrifty  way  of  look- 
ing at  business.  These  gentlemen,  from 
the  beginning,  have  not  been  able  to  un- 
derstand those  dreamy  theories  which 
some  of  us  people  have,  who  are  not 
practical,  or,  as  Mr.  Baer  said,  who  have 
never  employed  any  labor;  because,  of 
course,  if  a man  is  practical,  the  first 
thing  he  will  do  it  to  go  out  and  set 
somebody  to  work  for  him.  ((Applause.) 
Their  idea  is  that  they  are  the  masters; 
and  this  is  what  they  say.  So  when  Mr. 
John  Mitchell,  from  Indianapolis,  the 
head  of  this  organization,  having  had 
very  good  luck  in  1900,  and  standing  up 
these  gentlemen  for  ten  per  cent,  to  save 
the  country,  commenced  to  negotiate 
again  in  1902— they  got  through  1901  a 1 
right;  and,  strange  to  say,  I asked 
operator  after  operator — not  operators, 
though,  because  we  could  not  get  them 
in  here.  Some  of  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  sid£  have  expressed  regret  that  Mr. 
Fahey  and  Mr.  Nicholls  and  Mr.  Duffy 
were  not  put  on  the  witness  stand. 

Mr.  McCarthy:  Mr.  Duffy  was  on  the 
witness  stand. 

Mr  Darrow:  Mr.  Duffy  went  there. 
They  could  have  asked  him  questions  if 
they  had  regretted  it  seriously.  They 
sat  here,  and  they  could  have  put  him 
on.  But  they  regretted  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Duffy  and  Mr.  Fahey  and  Mr.  Nicholls, 
surely  not  any  deeper  than  my  regret  of 
Mr.  Baer  and  Mr.  Olyphant  and  Mr. 
Thcmas,  and  all  the  other  gentlemen 
who  arc  their  clients  in  this  case — these 


251 


gentlemen  who  did  not  even  get  near 
enough  to  take  the  chance  of  being  for- 
cibly called  into  the  witness  box  until 
after  the  last  words  had  been  spoken  and 
ihey  were  perfectly  safe. 

May  Strike  Again. 

But  the  men  who  had  struck  in  1900 
weie  not  satisfied.  It  is  a strange  thing 
how  you  never  can  satisfy  people;  and 
sometimes  the  better  you  treat  them  the 
less  they  are  satisfied.  I am  not  here  to 
enter  into  any  obligations,  and  I could 
not  enter  into  any,  that  if  these  wages 
were  laised  and  these  hours  were  reduced 
to  a reasonable  limit,  in  the  evolution  of 
business  and  industry  and  society,  we 
would  want  to  stay  there.  Nobody  wants 
to.  excepting  the  operators;  and  they 
want  it,  because  they  do  not  see  how 
they  could  get  a better  thing. 

Mr.  Mitchell  wrote  them  all  a letter— 
a very  respectful  letter,  such  as  he  al- 
ways writes — and  he  asked  each  of  these 
operators  if  they  would  not  join  his  or- 
ganization or  him  in  a conference  in 
Scranton  This  letter  was  written  in 
February,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  up  a 
rate  and  some  sort  of  an  agreement  be- 
tween the  operators  and  the  men.  They 
answered  the  letter;  and  I want  to  read 
some  extracts  from  what  they  say,  to 
prove  that  it  was  simply  opposition  to 
this  union,  and  nothing  else,  that  brought 
on  this  whole  trouble.  All  of  this  is 
quoted  from  Mr.  Baer's  book  that  he  has 
so  kindly  furnished  to  us,  and  that  is  a 
very  interesting  book,  especially  the 
parts  he  wrote. 

Mr.  Thomas  writes  as  follows,  among 
other  things: 

“I  regret  to  say  that  the  result  of  these 
observations,  and  the  experience  of  the 
companies  which  I represent,  has  not 
led  to  the  conclusion  that  a conference 
and  the  inauguration  of  the  methods  you 
now  propose  would  be  at  all  beneficial  to 
either  our  companies  or  the  employes. 
So  far.  the  apparent  effect  of  your  asso- 
ciation has  been  that  at  no  time  during 
the  last  twenty  years  has  a greater  spirit 
of  unrest  and  agitation  prevailed  among 
the  anthracite  miners  than  has  existed 
during  the  present  year.  Were  the  asso- 
ciation in  the  anthracite  region  composed 
entirely  of  English-speaking  adults,  deal- 
ing with  them  would  be  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent question  from  what  it  today 
presents.’’ 

Always  criticising  our  organization, 
while  we  were  willing  to  take  them  just 
as  they  were.  Mr.  Truesdale  replies  to 
the  letter: 

“As  far  as  we  are  at  present  advised 
by  any  of  our  men  working  in  or  about 
our  mines,  they  are  well  satisfied  with 
their  present  rates  of  wages,  their  hours 
of  work,  and  the  general  conditions  un- 
der which  they  perform  their  work  for  us. 
They  are  prosperous,  contented  and  we 
believe  recognize  that  they  have  been 
fairly  and  equitably  dealt  with  on  all 
questions  that  have  been  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  management  by  repre- 
sentatives acting  in  their  behalf."  He  de- 
clined. 

Mr.  George  F.  Baer,  who  now  says  he 
would  like  to  sit  down  and  talk  with  Mr. 
Mitchell  and  the  Civic  Federation  and 
any  other  body  of  gentlemen  about  his 
business — although  he  confines  it  mainly 
to  talk,  and  we  have  not  shawn  yet 
where  he  acted,  nor  has  he  shown  where 
he  acted,  though  1 will  show  that  he  did 
not  want  to  even  talk — Mr.  Baer  said: 

“The  experience  in  the  past  year  has 
not  been  satisfactory.  There  can  not  be 


252 


proceedings  op  the  anthracite 


two  masters  in  the  management  of  busi- 
ness. The  objection  to  your  proposition 
is  not  alone  the  impracticability  of  form- 
ing a uniform  scale  of  wages,  but  it  ''s 
to  the  divided  allegiance  it  creates.” 
And  so  Mr.  Baer  declines,  because  there 
can  not  be  two  masters,  and  if  there 
were  two  masters,  Mr.  Baer  could  not  be 
“it.”  (Laughter.! 

Mr.  Fowler,  of  the  Ontario  and  West- 
ern, said:  “This  being  my  view,  you  will 

see  that  it  would  be  futile  to  discuss  any 
such  o.uestions  as  you  indicate  may  be 
brought  up  by  you  at  your  convention 
with  those  whom  we  do  not  recognize  as 
representative  of  our  men,  nor  even  con- 
versant with  the  subject  you  propose  to 
discuss.” 

Mr.  Walter’s  letter  (the  president  of  the 
Lehigh  Valley):  “The  proposition  you 

submit  is  not  one  we  can  entertain,  as 
the  matters  which  it  is  proposed  to  dis- 
cuss, it  seems  to  us,  are  those  which  we 
should  arrange  by  dealing  directly  with 
our  own  employes  and  do  not  call  for  the 
intervention  of  the  organization  which 
you  represent.” 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Olyphant,  of  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson:  “I  beg  to  refer  you 
to  that  letter,  simply  adding  that  time 
has  confirmed  my  faith  in  the  action  tnen 
taken,  or,  rather,  strengthened  it,  as  in 
your  last  communication  you  plainly  in- 
timate that  you  expect  the  wage  schedule 
to  be  reviewed  yearly" — (agreed  on  year- 
ly is  what  it  should  be) — “a  condition 
which  is  at  once  unbusinesslike  and  ut- 
terly opposed  to  the  proper  conduct  of 
the  anthracite  mining  industry.  I must, 
therefore,  once  more  decline  your  invita- 
tion.” 

The  letter  of  Mr.  X.  A.  Stearns,  presi- 
dent of  Coxe  Bros.:  “I  am  not  aware 

that  there  is  any  question  of  wages  be- 
tween our  employes  and  the  companies 
I represent.  Knowing  that  our  employes 
are  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  existing 
conditions  and  much  better  qualified  to 
discuss  intelligently  questions  of  wages 
than  strangers  would  be,  1 must,  in  jus- 
tice to  our  employes” — (how  they  do  love 
their  employes)— “ns  well  as  to  the  com- 
pany I represent,  decline  to  take  part  In 
the  proposed  conference.” 

Mr.  Olyphant  again:  “The  public  will 
not  meet  such  advances  by  submitting  to 
an  increase  in  the  price  of  coal,  and  the 
operators  can  not  meet  them  without 
such  aid.  I must,  therefore,  decline  your 
proposition.” 

Every  single  one  of  these  gentlemen 
when  requested  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  the  head 
of  this  organization  representing  as  the 
evidence  has  shown  in  this  case  almost 
every  man  who  mined  coal  in  this  region, 
refused  to  meet  with  him  and  discuss 
with  him— not  agree  upon  a uniform  scale 
— there  is  no  such  demand  in  this  case, 
but  the  request  was  a gentlemanly  re 
quest  from  the  president  of  this  great  or- 
ganization—am  I not  right  in  saying  there? 
was  no  demand  for  a uniform  scale; 
there  was  a demand  for  a minimum  scale, 
and  nothing  more? 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Yes. 

Mr.  Harrow:  Every  single  one  of  these 
gentlemen  refused  even  to  meet  and  dis- 
cuss the  questions  between  this  organiza- 
tion and  the  companies  doing  business  in 
this  region.  Mr.  Baer,  I think,  was  in 
error  yesterday  when  he  said  that  we  de- 
manded a uniform  scale  in  this  region. 
I think  a uniform  minimum  was  asked 
for,  and  nothing  more. 

Mr.  Mitchell:  Yes, 


Mitchell  Opposed  the  Strike. 

Mr.  Darrow:  But  Mr.  Mitchell  was  not 
satisfied  with  this.  He  did  not  wish  to 
bring  on  this  strike.  These  autocratic 
gentlemen  who  manage  the  industries  of 
the  country  have  a very  strange  idea  of 
labor  leaders;  and  the  worst  of  it  is  they 
do  not  seem  to  learn.  X have  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  labor  leaders,  and  X 
think  I know  them,  and  this  case  has 
shown  the  gentlemen  of  the  commission 
something  about  thc-m  if  they  never 
knew  before.  Any  labor  leader  is  loath 
to  call  a strike.  Another  thing  that  these 
gentlemen  might  learn,  and  that  all  the 
captains  of  industry  who  have  appointed 
themselves  captains  of  industry,  might 
learn,  is  that  it  is  much  easier  for  them 
to  deal  with  the  men  who  are  the  highest 
up;  and  we  have  learned  that  too.  X had 
rather  go  even  to  Mr.  Baer  than  to  some 
of  his  petty  feudal  tyrants  such  as  the 
man  who  dismissed  a miner  because  he 
came  into  this  court  to  testify  in  this 
case.  The  man  who  has  the  greatest  re- 
sponsibility and  the  widest  vision  is  the 
man  to  meet,  and  the  sooner  these  gen- 
tlemen learn  that  the  presidents,  hnd  the 
district  leaders,  and  the  men  charged 
with  authority  are  the  men  for  them  to 
meet,  the  better  it  will  be  for  their  own 
business  and  the  common  interests  of  the 
common  country  which  all  of  us  ought  to 
serve. 

Mr.  Mitchell  did  not  want  a strike.  Ev- 
ery labor  leader  knows  that  a strike 
means  distress  and  suffering  of  the  most 
grievous  sort.  Mr.  Mitchell  did  not  wish 
to  take  from  these  five  hundred  thousand 
men,  women  and  children  the  means  of 
living  for  an  indefinite  time,  apd  place 
them  in  penury  and  want  and  starvation, 
and  leave  them  perhaps  to  be  thrown  out 
homeless  upon  the  street;  he  did  not  wish 
to  take  these  families  and  assume  the  re- 
sponsibility of  feeding  the  hungry  and 
clothing  the  naked  which  comes  to  every 
leader  who  assumes  the  responsibility  of 
a great  strike.  So  he  was  not  satisfied 
when  these  great  gentlemen  contemptu- 
ously said:  “No:  we  will  not  meet  you. 

We  will  meet  with  our  men,  if  they  come 
as  men,  individually,  to  these  great  cor- 
porations, combined  and  consolidated  as 
only  the  strong  and  the  great  can  com- 
bine and  consolidate;  but  you  come  alone. 
Come  alone  and  defenseless.  Come  to  us 
with  your  hats  in  your  hands,  and  if  we 
do  not  like  what  you  say,  we  will  give 
you  notice  to  move  out  into  the  street.” 
But  no,  Mr.  Mitchell  was  not  satisfied 
with  this;  so  in  March  they  had  a con- 
vention and  then  he  wired  to  the  man- 
agers of  every  one  of  these  big  compa- 
nies: “By  direction  of  miners'  conven- 

tion, I wire  to  ascertain  If  your  company 
will  join  other  anthracite  coal  companies 
in  conference  with  committee  represent- 
ing anthracite  mine  workers  for  purpose 
of  discussing  and  adjusting  grievances 
which  affect  all  companies  anu  all  em- 
ployes alike.  Please  answer."  Not  for  a 
minimum  wage,  not  for  a uniform  scale: 
but  “would  you  join  the  rest'to  discuss 
the  matter.  Let  us  come  together,  man 
to  man,  face  to  face,  and  see  what  we 
can  make  of  it.  We  are  not  so  unreason- 
able as  you  think.  We  have  been  your 
servants  for.  lo,  these  twenty  or  thirty 
years,  and  we  have  reason  and  sense 
enough  for  you  to  employ  us  to  go  down 
in  your  mines  to  look  after  your  proper- 
ty, and  we  simply  ask  you  to  come  and 
discuss  the  question  with  us.”  And  what 
do  these  gentlemen  do?  They  wired  an- 
swers, and  I will  read  the  answers. 

First  comes  Mr.  Thomas:  “John  Mitch- 


ell. chairman.  Your  telegram  has  beetl 
referred  to  me.  My  letter  of  Feb.  20,  ad- 
dressed to  you  at  Indianapolis,  so  fully 
and  clearly  sets  forth  our  position  that  X 
can  not  concur  in  your  suggestion,  with- 
out knowing  more  definitely  what  ques- 
tions will  be  submitted  to  the  conference 
proposed.” 

This  comes  from  Mr.  Truesdale.  of  the 
Delaware,  X^aclca  wanna  and  'Western 
railroad:  “I  would  respectfully  refer  you 
to  my  letter  of  Feb.  IS,  addressed  to  you 
at  Indianapolis,  in  reply  to  your  mes- 
sage to  me  of  Saturday  last.”  They  did 
not  change  their  minds  in  thirty  days. 

Then  comes  Mr.  Walters,  president  of 
the  Lehigh  Valley:  “John  Mitchell, 

chairman:  The  attitude  of  the  Lehigh 
Valley  Coal  company  is  so  fully  defined 
on  all  points  in  my  letter  of  the  19th  inst.. 
that  after  full  consideration  I see  no 
new  points  to  be  raised,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  I can  not  do  better  than  to  refer 
you  to  that  letter  for  reply  to  your  mes- 
sage of  the  22nd.  ’ 

The  Two  Georges. 

The  wording  of  these  telegrams  would 
look  almost  like  consolidation  and  com- 
bination, would  it  not?  They  are  as 
nearly  alike  as  King  George's  letter 
about  the  American  colonies  resembled 
the  letter  of  King  George  the  Last  when 
he  wrote  about  the  condition  of  the  an- 
thracite miners,  in  whom  the  Lord  had 
placed  the  care  of  these  miners  and  their 
industries.  (I.aughter.)  It  almost  seemed 
as  if  they  had  caucused  before  they  sent 
these  replies. 

Again:  "Mr.  John  Mitchell,  replying  to 

your  telegram,  our  company's  position  is 
fully  stated  in  my  letter  of  Feb.  19.  Irv- 
ing A.  Stearns,  for  Coxe  Bros.” 

"John  Mitchell:  Replying  to  your  tele- 
gram, I can  only  reply  as  I have  hereto- 
fore, that  our  companies  will  be  always 
ready  to  meet  and  discuss  with  our  em- 
ployes' complaints  on  their  part.  Can  not 
deviate  from  that  course.  R.  M.  Oly- 
phant." 

"Philadelphia.  Pa..  March  .24.  John 
Mitchell:  Always  willing  to  meet  our 

employes  to  discuss  and  adjust  any  griev- 
ances. I had  hoped  that  my  letter  clear- 
ly expressed  our  views.  George  F.  Baer.” 

"Mr.  John  Mitchell:  Answering  your 

telegraphic  message  of  Saturday,  I can 
only  repeat  to  you  the  substance  of  my 
letter  of  Feb.  18.  in  which  I informed  you. 
that  while  the  coal  companies  under  in- 
direction would  not  participate  in  any 
conference  with  persons  not  connected 
with  them  in  interest  or  business,  they 
have  always  been  and  will  always  be 
ready  and  willing  to  confer  with  their 
employes  on  any  subject  of  mutual  inter- 
est. I.  D.  Wister,  vice-president  Penn- 
sylvania Coal  Company.” 

Now  it  will  be  observed  that  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell's telegram  was  March  22.  On  March  22 
Mr.  Mitchell  wired  these  gentlemen  for 
this  conference,  and  that  was  a month 
after  their  correspondence  by  letter.  The 
answers  of  these  preseidents  came  on 
March  21.  two  days  after  Mr.  Mitchell  s 
telegram  had  been  sent.  Every  single 
president  refers  Mr.  Mitchell  to  the  let- 
ter that  had  been  written  a month  be- 
fore. It  is  also  inconceivable  that  in  two 
days  these  gentlemen,  who  seemed  to  he 
scared  for  fear  that  the  laboring  men  are 
going  to  create  a trust,  these  gentlemen, 
who  so  love  the  American  people  that 
they  are  willing  to  save  the  American 
people  from  the  men  who  have  not  a dol- 
lar In  the  world,  and  who  have  nothing 
to  give  and  never  had  anj  thing  to  give 


but  their  labor  for  the  benefit  of  the 
world— these  gentlemen,  representing  all 
the  anthracite  coal  in  the  United  tetates, 
and  not  only  that  but  a large  share  of 
the  bituminous  coal,  too,  had  met  to- 
gether and  agreed  that,  though  the  heav- 
ens fell,  they  would  not  meet  John 
Mitchell. 

Oh,  no,  millions  for  conquest,  but  not  a 
cent  for  tribute.  They  understood  that 
there  could  not  be  two  masters  and  could 
not  be  a divided  allegiance.  Mr.  George 
F.  Baer  and  his  associates  were  the  mas- 
ters and  the  allegiance  of  the  men  were 
to  them,  and  so  they  made  a contract 
themselves  and  this  was  the  next  step 
in  the  proceeding. 

The  Matter  of  Contracts. 

They  took  time  by  the  forelock,  these 
gentlemen  charged  with  great  interests. 
Mr.  Baer  tells  you  how  perfectly  proper 
and  fair  were  their  contracts.  The  law 
has  a great  deal  to  say  about  this  ques- 
tion and  I need  only  to  quote  a few  com- 
mon elementary  principles.  In  determin- 
ing whether  a contract  is  a just,  a fail 
and  a voluntary  contract,  the  greatest 
attention  must  be  paid  to  the  conditions 
of  the  parties  to  the  contract.  I^or  in- 
stance, the  contract  of  a lawyer  with  his 
client  is  scrutinized  with  the  greatest  care 
and  doubt.  The  contract  of  a guardian 
and  his  ward,  the  contract  of  one  party 
who  occupies  a confidential  relation  to 
another,  and  I take  it  that  it  only  needs 
a carrying  out  of  the  same  principle  to 
say  that  the  contract  of  a man  living  in 
another’s  house  and  getting  his  daily 
bread  from  him  and  renting  his  house  at 
his  will  and  pleasure  for  cents  a day, 
is  such  a contract,  if  that  o.uestion  ever 
became  necessary  in  this  case.  These 
gentlemen  never  made  a contract.  Never 
made  a fair,  open  contract  and  could  not, 
and  they  never  placed  themselves  in  a 
relation  to  do  it.  But  they  did  this:  On 
the  14th  day  of  March,  almost  one  month 
after  Mr.  Mitchell  had  written  letters  to 
every  president  of  these  companies  ask- 
ing for  a meeting,  asking  for  a joint 
agreement  between  the  operators  and  the 
men,  asking  simply  to  meet  them  and 
discuss  the  question  of  wages,  almost  a 
month  later  and  without,  so  far  as  the 
evidence  in  this  case  shows,  ever  going 
to  their  own  men,  or  calling  them  to- 
gether, or  meeting  a committee,  or  con- 
sulting them,  they  posted  this  notice  upon 
the  doors  of  their  work,  on  March  14. 
1902,  the  operators  posted  the  following- 
notice  at  each  colliery:  “The  rates  of 
wages  now  in  effect  will  be  continued  un- 
til April  1,  1903,  and  thereafter,  subject  to 
sixty  days’  notice.”  There  is  a contract 
for  another  year,  and  a beautiful  con- 
tract it  is. 

■ “Local  differences  will,  as  heretofore, 
be  adjusted  with  our  employes  at  the  re- 
spective collieries.’’ 

It  is  an  easy  thing  to  make  a contract 
when  you  can  dictate  it  to  your  stenog- 
rapher and  post  it  on  the  door  of  your 
factory.  That  is  what  they  did.  Not  a 
contract  for  a day,  or  a.  week,  or  a 
month,  but  when  these  men  went  to  work 
they  found  posted  on  the  doors,  “We  hav» 
concluded  to  maintain  the  present  wage 
scale  for  a year  and  thereafter,  except  on 
sixty  days’  notice.”  What  had  these  men 
to  do  with  it,  these  men  in  the  face  of  the 
demand  of  their  representative  and  their 
president?  In  the  face  of  the  effort  of 
the  president  of  this  organization  to  meet 
these  men  to  discuss  wages  and  all  The 
conditions  of  the  contract  that  ought  to 
be  made? 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


The  Next  Step. 

What  is  the  next  step?  Mr.  Mitchell 
was  not  yet  content.  Still  unwilling  to 
call  this  strike,  still  anxious  to  see  if  it 
might  be  averted,  he  wires  them  again. 
Then  rather  than  bring  on  this  strike, 
after  they  had  been  spurned  with  con- 
tempt as  another  king  had  spurned  with 
contempt  the  just  petitions  of  his  sub- 
jects, for  these  men  were  their  subjects, 
he  proposed  the  only  thing  that  is  left, 
and  that  is  arbitration  I insist  there  is 
nothing  else  left.  Industrial  peace  is  not 
possible  in  any  other  way.  Under  the 
strict  letter  and  rule  of  the  law  it  is  the 
right  of  these  coal  companies  to  combine 
and  turn  their  employes  in  the  street  if 
they  wish  to  reduce  wages,  and  no  man 
can  deny  it.  It  is  their  right  under  the 
laws  of  this  country  to  call  to  their  aid 
that  last  weapon  which  has  caused  more 
surrenders  than  any  other  weapon  since 
men  fought  their  fellowmen,  starvation, 
if  they  wished.  The  weapon  which  they 
employed  here,  thank  God,  with  such  ill 
effect.  They  had  the  right  to  turn  these 
employes  out,  and  on  the  other  nand,  the 
employes  had  the  right  to  walk  out  and 
tell  the  public,  devise  a way  to  prevent 
both  operator  and  workman  from  para- 
lyzing business  and  industry.  They  must 
both  continue  to  have  this  right  and  we 
must  defend  it  for  them  the  same  as  for 
ourselves. 

But  Mr.  Mitchell,  acting  not  as  they 
acted,  although  not  a business  man,  and 
so  far  as  the  evidence  in  this  case  is  con- 
cerned never  having  hired  anybody  in  his 
life  to  work  for  him  and  make  any 
money  for  him,  although  not  a business 
man,  he  was  unwilling  to  precipitate  such 
a crisis  upon  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  He  was  unwilling  to  ask  this 
great  body  of  men,  of  whom  he  was  the 
shepherd,  and  I insist,  as  wise  and  kind 
and  humane  a shepherd  as  ever  lived,  he 
was  unwilling  to  ask  them  to  face  this 
horrible  crisis  until  every  means  had 
been  exhausted  to  prevent  it.  So  he 
wired  these  gentlemen  and  asked  them  to 
arbitrate  their  differences.  You  claim 
one  thing,  we  another.  If  we  insist  upon 
our  point,  we  refuse  to  mine  coal;  if  you 
insist  upon  your  point,  no  more  coal  can 
come  from  the  mine.  We  will  suffer,  the 
public  will  suffer.  I may  be  wrong  in  my 
demands  and  there  is  only  one  way  to 
determine  whether  I am  wrong  and  that 
is  to  submit  my  demand  to  some  person 
who  can  judge  calmly  and  fairly  between 
the  two.  So  he  asked  for  this  and  these 
are  the  replies  ne  got  to  his  request: 

“New  York,  May  3,”  four  days  before 
this  strike,  when  any  men  but  business 
men.  any  men  who  recognized  any  law 
except  the  dead  letter  of  the  statute 
would  have  considered  some  obligation, 
they  sent  this  reply;  “Mr.  John  Mitcnell, 
President  of  the  United  Mine  Workers. 
Your  message  of  this  date  received.  You 
failed  to  state  in  it  that  the  notices  post- 
ed by  this  company  not  only  agree  to 
continue  paying  the  10  per  cent,  increase 
granted  our  mine  employes  in  1900  until 
April  1,  1903,  and  thereafter  subject  to 
sixty  days'  notice,  but  it  also  states  our 
mining  superintendents  will  take  up  and 
adjust  any  grievances  with  our  employes. 
The  reasons  why  we  cannot  grant  your 
demand  have  been  most  fully  explained 
in  our  recent  conferences  and  my  letter 
to  you  of  Feb.  18  last.  In  view  of  all 
these  facts  I am  sure  you  cannot  expect 
us  to  concur  in  either  of  the  propositions 
contained  in  your  message  referred  to 
(Signed)  W.  II.  Truesdale,  President  of 


253 

the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern.” 

Here  is  another  one: 

"May  8,  1902.  John  Mitchell,  Chairman. 
Not  only  from  our  standpoint,  but  from 
yours  as  well,  the  matter  has  had  such 
full  and  careful  consideration  in  all  its 
features  at  our  several  interviews  last 
week  as  leaves  little  to  be  discussed.  In 
addition,  my  letter  of  Feb.  20  cannot  fail 
to  make  it  clear  to  you,  as  it  is  to  us, 
that  the  subject  cannot  be  practically 
handled  in  the  manner  suggested  in  your 
your  telegram.  E.  B.  Thomas,”  president 
of  another  company. 

Now  comes  Mr.  Baer.  His  telegram  is 
long  and  is  sent  out  a day  later,  took  a 
longer  time  to  write,  I have  no  doubt. 
This  was  after  consideration. 

"Philadelphia,  May  9,  1902.  John  Mitch- 
ell, Scranton,  Pa.’’ — I am  mistaken  about 
this— “I  was  out  of  town;  therefore  the 
delay  in  answering  your  dispatch."  Now 
for  his  contract.  “By  posted  notices,  the 
present  rates  of  wages  were  continued 
until  April,  1903,  and  thereafter  subject  to 
sixty  days’  notice.  Local  differences  to 
be  adjusted  as  heretofore  with  our  em- 
ployes at  the  respective  collieries.  By 
written  communications,  by  full  discus- 
sion before  the  Civic  Federation,  by  pro- 
tracted personal  conferences  with  your- 
self  and  the  district  presidents,  we  have 
fully  informed  you  of  our  position.  We 
gave  you  the  figures  showing  the  cost  of 
mining  and  marketing  coal,  and  the  sums 
realized  therefrom  in  the  markets,  in  the 
hope  of  convincing  you  that  it  was  abso- 
lutely impracticable  to  increase  wages. 
To  your  suggestion  that  the  price  of  coal 
should  be  increased  to  the  public,  our 
answer  was  that  this  was  not  only  un- 
desirable, but  in  view  of  the  sharp  com 
petition  of  bituminous  coal  it  was  im- 
possible. We  offered  to  permit  you  or 
your  experts  to  examine  our  books  to 
verify  our  statements.  Anthracite  min- 
ing is  a business,  and  not  a religious, 
sentimental,  or  academic  proposition.  The 
laws  organizing  the  companies  I repre- 
sent in  express  terms  impose  the  business 
management  on  the  president  and  direc- 
tors. I could  not,  if  I would,  delegate 
this  business  management  to  even  so 
highly  a respectable  body  as  the  Civic 
Federation,  nor  can  I call  to  my  aid  as 
experts  in  the  mixed  problem  of  business 
and  philanthropy  the  eminent  prelat -s 
you  have  named.  George  F.  Baer." 

I do  not  suppose  I need  to  read  the  sig 
nature.  I hope  he  did  not  have  to  pay 
for  that  at  three  cents  a word.  He  could 
better  afford  to  raise  the  miners’  wages. 

Mitchell  Eulogized. 

Now,  this  wras  the  condition  up  to  the 
strike.  Every  request,  every  demand, 
every  prayer  of  these  men  had  been  con 
temptuously  refused.  Mr.  Mitchell  hail 
asked  to  meet  and  discuss.  He  has  asked, 
when  that  failed^  that  they  submit  their 
differences  to  a body  of  men.  or  to  an 
individual  man,  and  let  them  settle,  be- 
fore this  civil  strife  was  precipitated 
upon  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
No  human  being  could  have  done  mor>  , 
and  no  conscientious,  intelligent  man. 
true  to  the  high  position  which  he  repre 
sents,  and  there  is  none  higher,  no  mat- 
ter what  it  is,  no  man  could  have  done 
less.  These  men,  whose  life  and  liberty 
and  condition  in  a way  were  dependent 
upon  him,  not  only  that,  but  all  the  fu- 
ture generations  that  are  dependent  upon 
the  just  treatment  of  the  generation  In 
which  we  live,  all  these  caused  him  to 
make  this  demand,  which  was  just  and 


254 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


reasonable  and  which  they  have  largely 
conceded  in  the  closing  days  of  this  his- 
toric hearing.  They  spurned  it  with  con- 
tempt. We  will  not  meet  you,  we  will 
not  raise  wages,  we  will  not  shorten 
hours,  we  will  not  submit  our  difference  s 
to  unprejudiced,  fair-minded  men.  we  wi  1 
post  our  notice  upon  the  door,  and  this 
shall  be  your  contract  for  twelve  months 
to  come. 

Gentlemen,  you  may  have  all  the  con- 
solation that  you  can  get.  You  may  take 
all  the  notices  that  you  may  pay  for,  but 
you  can  never  deceive  the  American 
public,  who  understand  where  the  re- 
sponsibility of  this  great  strike  rested, 
from  beginning  to  end.  You  allowed  this 
strike,  nay,  you  forced  this  strike,  that 
you  might  demonstrate  to  your  men  that 
you  might  demonstrate  to  the  generation 
in  which  you  live,  that  you  might  demon- 
strate to  the  generations  yet  to  come, 
that  the  owners  of  capital  are  the  mas- 
ters, and  no  divided  allegiance  could  be 
tolerated  for  a single  moment.  This 
strike,  from  its  inception  and  before,  was 
brought  about  for  one  purpose,  and  only 
one,  to  crush  out  this  union,  which  had 
brought  to  these  down-cast,  suffering 
men,  women  and  children,  the  first  ray 
of  light  and  hope  and  inspiration  that 
had  ever  come  into  the  darkness  of  their 
lives.  Yet  these  gentlemen  were  not  only 
willing,  for  the  sake  of  destroying  the 
union,  to  plunge  this  country  into  dis- 
order and  danger,  but  they  come  here  in 
the  last  days  of  this  hearing  and  charge 
to  this  commission  that  the  men  who 
were  fighting  for  their  liberty,  fighting 
for  their  rights  to  make  a fair  contract 
between  man  and  man,  fighting  for  the 
right  to  meet  their  masters  and  discuss 
their  grievances,  and  nottr.ng  else,  that 
these  men  were  responsible,  because,  for- 
sooth, they  were  not  willing  to  take  the 
notices  that  were  posted  on  their  em- 
ployers’ door.  If  j.  thought  that  there  was 
any  sort  of  danger  that  any  number  of 
American  citizens  could  place  the  respon- 
sibility there,  then  I would  despair  for 
the  intelligence  of  my  countrymen. 

Philosophy  of  Unionism. 

Mr.  Baer  thinks  a labor  union  is  a ter- 
rible thing.  He  objects  to  the  United 
Mine  Workers.  Every  word  that  he  ut- 
tered, however  well  disguised,  showed 
that  his  real  grievance  was  against  this 
body,  who  had  dared  to  come  into  this 
region  and  dispute  his  imperial  author. ty. 
He  says  it  is  a cruel  thing,  and  a terrible 
thing,  that  four  hundred  thousand  mine 
workers,  representing  the  anthracite  ai  d 
bituminous  fields,  can  form  a monopoly 
of  all  the  coal  that  is  produced  in  the 
United  States.  And  he  warns  the  coun- 
try that  if  this  is  possible  they  may 
awaken  some  day  and  be  unprotected 
from  the  cold  blast  of  the  winter.  He 
says  this  is  still  more  cruel  because  these 
men  have  no  financial  responsibility— be- 
cause they  are  poor.  Educated  in  the 
law  and  in  the  ethics  of  business,  he  has 
taught  himself  to  believe  that  the  dan- 
ger would  be  less  if  these  mine  workers 
were  rich.  Does  not  Mr.  Baer  understand 
by  this  time  that  the  American  people 
fear  his  monopoly  more  than  ours?  Ai  d 
does  he  not  understand  that  they  fear  it 
because  it  is  so  rich,  and  because  it  has 
financial  responsibility?  The  poor  man  is 
utterly  unable,  except  for  a limited  time, 
and  under  limited  conditions,  to  control 
and  regulate  the  conditions  of  trade.  But 
take  the  power  of  the  great  railroad 
companies  of  this  country,  which  control 
the  trade  both  of  the  bituminous  and  the 
anthracite  fields,  and  it  depends  upon  the 


sweet  will  and  the  sweet  pleasure  of  one 
man  to  paralyze  the  wheels  of  industry. 
Your  responsibility,  Mr.  Baer— and  by  the 
word  “responsibility”  I mean  what  he 
means — your  financial  responsibility  is 
the  thing  that  the  American  people  fear. 
Mr.  Baer,  afraid  of  the  Mine  Workers, 
and  the  people  of  this  country,  afraid 
of  these  men  who  dig  their  coal?  Why 
let  us  look  at  the  other  side  of  the  pic- 
ture. I do  not  believe  much  in  monopoly 
myself,  and  I propose  to  treat  both  cf 
these  monopolies  in  the  same  way,  be- 
cause an  organization  of  labor,  to  a cer- 
tain extent,  is  a monopoly,  as  I sha  1 
discuss  further  on.  But  Mr.  Baer  ought 
to  know,  and  does  know,  that  his  peop  e 
have  a monopoly,  too.  The  Pennsylvania 
railroad  and  the  Reading  railroad  and 
the  B.  and  O.  are  one  thing.  In  fact,  all 
the  great  trunk  line  systems  are  pretty 
nearly  one  thing.  And  these  roads  not 
only  bring  the  anthracite  coal,  but  tl  e 
bituminous  coal  to  market  as  well. 
Either  one.  under  certain  conditions, 
might  paralyze  industry  and  bring  ru  n 
and  want,  and  I am  willing  to  join  wi  h 
Mr.  Baer  and  say  that  I believe  that  con- 
dition is  not  right — not  right  for  a sing'e 
moment;  and  I have  my  views  upon  th  s 
question,  which  might  or  might  not  he 
interesting  to  this  commission  or  ger- 
mane to  the  subject.  They  are  not  the 
views  of  Mr.  Baer,  however.  Mr.  Barr 
says.  “Ah,  the  thing  to  do  is  to  cru  h 
the  United  Mine  Workers,  and  leave  t 
with  us.  We  are  Christian  gentlemen,  in 
whom  the  Dord,  with  His  infinite  wisdom, 
has  placed  the  management  of  these 
properties,  and  everybody’s  interests  a- e 
safe  in  our  hands."  Mr.  Baer  might  as 
well  understand,  and  he  will  learn  if  he 
places  his  ear  close  to  the  ground— he  has 
carried  his  head  so  high  that  he  has 
never  done  that— he  might  as  well  un- 
derstand that  the  people  of  America  wi  1 
not  always  place  themselves  in  a posi- 
tion where  they  may  be  dependent  for 
fuel  or  any  necessity  of  life,  either  upon 
mine  owners  or  mine  workers.  (Great  ap- 
plause.) And  I hope  they  will  not. 

Mr.  Baer  and  all  of  his  friends  ought  to 
understand  that  the  people  of  the  United 
States  do  not  believe  in  any  such  abso- 
lute ownership  of  the  earth  on  which  we 
live  that  will  allow  them  to  hold  all  tl  e 
coal  that  the  Lord  has  placed  in  it.  and 
make  the  rest  of  us  freeze,  except  they 
give  the  word;  and  when  the  time  shad 
come,  it  will  be  settled,  not  by  destroying 
the  Mine  Workers,  but  by  the  people  tak- 
ing possession,  in  some  way,  and  under 
fair  terms,  of  this  coal  and  providing  a 
means  for  themselves,  so  that  they  will 
not  freeze,  so  that  industry  will  not  be 
paralyzed,  so  that  their  necessities  and 
their  wants  will  not  be  dependent  upon 
one  man,  or  ten  men.  or  four  hundred 
thousand  men;  and  they  never  can  pro- 
tect themselves  in  any  other  way.  (Ap- 
plause.) But  I did  not  mean  to  follow 
these  gentlemen  into  an  academic  discus- 
sion. 1 meant  to  stick  to  the  case. 

Trying  to  Settle  the  Strike. 

The  strike  came  on.  and  everybody  ex- 
cepting the  operators  wanted  to  settle  it. 
They  knew  the  power  of  their  weapons. 
Senator  Quay  took  a hand  in  it.  and  Mr. 
Baer  wrote  to  him.  The  commissioner  of 
labor  investigated,  and  Mr.  Baer  made 
statements  to  him,  and  this  is  what  he 
said  to  him.  or  is  quoted  as  saying:  “For 
example,  the  lowest  scale  of  wages  is  85 
cents’’— which  is  not  true,  as  you  will  see 
—“for  boy  slate  pickers;  three  thousand 
of  them  get  85  cents  a day;  men  slate 
pickers;  who  are  too  old  to  do  any  other 


kind  of  work,  get  $1.20.”  Mr.  Thomrs 
says;  “We  had  boys  earning  14  cents  an 
hour,  when  their  fathers  were  working 
on  the  track  at  12  cents  on  hour.”  It  did 
not  occur  to  Mr.  Thomas  to  raise  the 
wages  of  the  fathers,  and  cut  off  the 
boys  entirely,  of  course. 

Mr.  Baer  also  says:  "I  also  submit  a 
statement  to  show  what  the  average 
daily'  wages  of  all  the  employes  are, 
without  regard  to  classification,  includ- 
ing breaker  boys,  and  everyone,  taken 
from  our  pay  roll.  In  January,  1902,  we 
had  15,976  inside  laborers,  and  9,828  out- 
side laborers,  a'  total  of  25.804  men.  The 
average  pay'  per  day.  which  included  the 
boys  in  the  breakers  and  at  the  veins, 
was  $1.89.”  The  figures  are  on  file  with 
this  commission,  and  they  are  thirty  per 
cent,  lower,  including  all  these  laborers, 
than  this  information  which  was  given 
the  commissioner  of  labor,  to  be  sent  ou  t 
broadcast  through  this  country',  up  n 
which  the  people  should  base  their 
opinion. 

Mr.  Olyphant  say's:  "We  had  twenty- 
three  years  of  perfect  peace — nothing  to 
trouble  us  in  our  minds  anywhere.”  Well, 
this  is  not  the  only  condition  of  perfect 
peace.  During  those  twenty-three  yeais 
of  perfect  peace,  we  cannot  forget  what 
Hewitt  said  about  it.  It  was  the  perfect 
peace  of  the  graveyard,  except  that  the 
men  could  work. 

Mr.  Baer  say's  again:  “Now,  what  I 
have  said  is  that  the  management  of  busi- 
ness belongs  to  the  owners.”  There  is 
the  trouble  with  this  case.  Gentlemen  of 
this  commission,  these  men  can  ne\'er  un- 
derstand that  the  management  of  business 
does  not  belong  to  the  owners.  The  man 
who  builds  a mill  and  equips  It  a,  d 
draws  his  profits  from  it,  under  the  lav  s 
of  this  country,  has  a right,  of  course, 
to  say'  how  many  hours  men  shall  work, 
what  wages  they'  shall  get.  to  say  any- 
thing not  inconsistent  with  the  law  I 
admit  it.  But  the  man  who  is  bound  to 
sell  his  labor  and  spend  his  time  inside 
the  doors  of  that  mill  has  the  same  right 
to  say  how  many  hours  he  will  work,  or 
how  many  days  he  will  work,  or  for  how 
much  money'  he  will  work;  and  there  can 
be  no  gainsay'ing  it.  If  the  mill  owner 
sees  fit  to  pay  15  cents  a day',  or  7 cents 
a day,  which  was  one  of  the  comparisons 
that  the  operators'  accountant  gave  us, 
as  a basis  in  this  case — that  was  from 
China,  although  I did  not  read  it.  be- 
cause I did  not  have  time  to  follow  up 
all  the  figures;  the  commission  will  find 
it  filed  safely'  away,  China,  7 cents  a day. 
and  British  India,  14  cents  a day;  I do 
not  know  which  they  expected  us  to  use — 
if  they  did  want  to  place  us  upon  this 
Chinese  level,  or  any  other  level,  under 
the  lows  of  this  country,  as  they  exist  to- 
day, they  ha\'e  a perfect  right  to  close 
their  doors  and  only  open  them  when 
their  demands  are  acceded  to.  And  we 
have  that  right.  "What  does  it  mean?  It 
means  industrial  war,  and  industrial  war 
is  all  that  the  laws  of  America  ha\'e  pro- 
vided for.  So  long  as  it  has  provided  for 
nothing  but  industrial  war.  then  we  in- 
sist upon  the  part  of  labor  that  you  have 
no  right  to  compel  the  laboring  man  to 
lay  down  his  arms  upon  the  field  of  bat- 
tle. If  it  is  industrial  war,  well  and  good. 
IVe  can  fight  as  well  as  you  can  fight, 
and  until  the  country  provides  some  other 
way,  we  must  have  our  chance  as  well  as 
you.  (Applause.) 

I wish,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  you  would 
request  that  there  be  no  applause. 

The  Chairman:  At  the  request  of  Mr. 
Darrow,  I must  again  beg  that  the  audi- 
ence will  refrain  from  applauding. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


The  Moral  Law. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  the  law.  I take 
it  there  is  a moral  law  that  is  higher. 
Whatever  Mr.  Baer  may  say,  and  I will 
be  charitable  enough  to  believe  that  al- 
though his  w'ords  were  written  he  did  not 
think  what  he  said,  it  is  too  late  in  the 
world  for  any  man,  however  high  and 
mighty,  to  say  to  any  intelligent  human 
being  that  there  is  no  distmction  between 
the  laws  of  the  land  and  the  moral  law. 
Why,  a hundred  years  ago  and  more,  Mr. 
William  Blackstone.  the  great  comment  t- 
tor,  and  almost  the  father  of  English  law, 
wrote  it  down  that  the  man  who  squared 
his  conduct  by  the  letter  of  the  law  was 
neither  an  honest  man  nor  a good  citi- 
zen. Neither  is  he.  The  civil  law  does 
not  pretend  to  take  into  account  every- 
thing that  is  good  and  bad.  The  civil  law 
does  not  take  cognizance  of  all  the  rights 
and  the  duties  and  the  obligations  of  men. 
If  it  does,  we  had  better  nail  up  our 
church  doors  and  close  our  school  houses 
for  ever,  and  burn  most  all  of  our  books 
that  have  dealt  with  the  questions  of 
moral  conduct.  If  a civil  strife  like  this 
comes  on,  then  those  responsible  for  it 
must  consider  the  moral  questions.  The 
man  who  owns  the  factory  must  consider 
whether  he  bas  any  moral  duty,  and  the 
men  who  are  dependent  upon  him,  in  a 
way,  for  bread,  and  the  danger  and  evil 
to  society  that  will  result  if  he  closes  his 
doors.  The  workingmen  must  consider, 
too,  their  responsibility  to  those  depend- 
ent upon  them  and  to  the  community  that 
their  labor  serves;  and  I insist  that  if 
either  one  of  them  recognizes  the  moral 
law  they  will  say:  “I  may  be  looking  at 
this  question  from  my  standpoint.  I will 
submit  my  differences  to  some  one  eSse.” 
And  some  time  I have  no  doubt  that  the 
civil  law  will  recognize  this  much  of  the 
moral  law.  Mr.  Mitchell  recognized  it. 
Mr.  Mitchell  offered  to  submit  this  con- 
troversy to  a board  of  arbitration,  but  the 
operators  said  "No.”  Repeatedly  they 
said:  "We  have  nothing  to  arbitrate.  ’ 
It  is  the  old,  old  q"estion,  “What  is  there 
to  arbitrate?  Arbitrate  wages?  Why,  we 
have  posted  the  wages  on  our  breaker 
doors,  and  the  contract  runs  until  April, 
1903.  There  is  no  question  of  wages;  that 
is  settled.”  It  is  settled  like  every  con- 
troversy in  the  anthracite  regions  for 
fifty  years;  and  “there  is  nothing  to  ar- 
bitrate.” 

Regarding  Violence. 

And  so  the  strike  came  on.  For  a mo- 
ment I want  to  omit  the  strike  and  show 
that  this  condition  continued  in  the  minds 
of  these  gentlemen  clear  to  the  end.  Un- 
fortunately for  them,  the  sentiment  of 
the  country  was  with  the  miners,  and  the 
people  sent  their  money,  and  their  cloth- 
ing, and  their  relief  to  prolong  this  strug- 
gle. We  of  Chicago  have  been  criticised 
because  we  gave  them  some  of  our 
money,  and  an  eminent  railroad  president 
said  that  Boston  deserved  to  freeze  this 
winter  because  she  sympathized  with  the 
strikers  last  summer.  The  whole  country 
has  been  criticised  by  these  gentlemen, 
because  in  this  most  gigantic  contest  that 
the  labor  world  has  ever  known  their 
sympathies  were  with  the  poor  instead  of 
the  rich.  We  can  stand  our  criticism.  I 
believe  the  great  mass  of  the  citizens  of 
Chicago  would  have  been  ready  to  huddle 
together  during  the  winter  and  keep 
themselves  warm  by  living  in  one  great 
room  rather  to  have  had  these  men  give 
up  the  fight  that  they  were  making,  not 
for  themselves,  but  for  the  common  hu- 
manity of  the  world,  and  for  the  genera- 


tions that  are  yet  unborn;  and  I believe 
that  is  true  of  the  great  mass  of  men  in 
all  the  United  States. 

The  strike  came  on  because  these  men 
refused  to  recognize  their  workmen  as 
human  beings,  and  October  came  around 
and  they  saw  the  winter  in  front  of  them, 
and  they  knew  then  whom  the  country 
held  responsible  for  this  cruel  struggle; 
and  the  country  has  not  forgotten  today. 
Then  the  president  of  the  United  States, 
in  obedience  to  the  wishes  and  the  pray- 
ers of  his  countrymen,  asked  Mr.  Mitch- 
ell to  come,  and  he  asked  the  presidents 
of  the  railroad  companies  to  come  and 
see  if  they  could  not  agree  on  some  terms 
to  settle  this  industrial  strife.  And  they 
came.  And  Mr.  John  Mitchell's  words 
were  conservative,  calm,  wise,  ethical, 
human.  The  words  of  these  operators 
breathed  the  spirit  of  the  serpent,  if  ser- 
pents have  spirits;  they  bieathed  the  feel- 
ing of  a hyena;  they  showed  that  even 
with  the  winter  in  front  of  them  and 
with  a most  direful  calamity  possible  that 
the  people  were  to  face,  they  still  had 
not  learned  anything.  They  went  there, 
and  these  are  some  of  the  things  that 
were  said  before  the  president  of  the 
United  States  as  late  as  October: 

Mr.  Truesdale  said:  “It.  is  first  and 
foremost  our  duty,  and  we  take  this  oc- 
casion to  state  it  and  press  it  upon  your 
consideration,  and  through  you  upon  that 
of  the  authorities  of  the  state  of  Penn- 
sylvania, to  insist  upon  it  that  the  exist- 
ing conditions  of  anarchy  and  lawless- 
ness, of  riot  and  rapine,  a condition  which 
has  been  raging  with  more  or  less  vio- 
lence throughout  the  anthracite  regions 
during  the  past  five  months,  be  immedi- 
ately and  permanently  suppressed.  To 
this  -end  we  ask  that  the  entire  authority 
and  power  of  the  state  of  Pennsylvania, 
civil  and  military,  and,  if  needs  be,  that 
of  the  United  States  government  as  well, 
be  exercised  forthwith. 

"Second,  we  ask  that  the  civil  branch 
of  the  United  States  government,  taking 
cognizance  of  and  following  the  decision 
of  its  courts  rendered  in  litigation  grow- 
ing out  of  previous  similar  conditions,  at 
once  institute  proceedings  against  the  il 
legal  organization  mown  as  the  United 
Mine  Workers  association,  its  well  known 
officers,  agents  and  members,  to  enjoin 
and  restrain  permanently  it  and  them 
from  continuing  this  organization,  and 
requiring  them  to  desist  immediately 
from  conspiring,  conniving,  aiding  or 
abetting  the  outlawry  and  intolerable 
conditions  in  the  anthracite  regions  for 
which  they  and  they  alone,  are  respon- 
sible. We  are  advised  by  our  counsel 
that  such  civil  action  will  lie  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  government  as  it  is 
well  known  that  the  United  States  stat- 
utes are  daily  being  openly  and  grossly 
violated;  that  orevious  decisions  of  the 
courts  justify  fully  such  action  being 
taken  at  this  time,  and  that  ample  rem- 
edy can  be  given  immediately  and  effec- 
tively for  existing  conditions. 

“Fourth— Another  duty,  Mr.  President, 
and  we  regard  it  as  the  most  supreme: 
One-sixth  of  the  membership  of  this  il- 
legal organization  is  composed  of  young 
men  and  boys  pet  ween  the  ages  of  14  and 
20,  the  future  citizens  and  law-makers  of 
the  great  state  of  Pennsylvania.  These 
young  men  and  boys  during  the  past  two 
years  have  had  their  young,  immature 
minds  poisoned  with  the  most  dangerous 
anarchistic,  distorted,  wicked  views  and 
errors  concerning  the  rights  of  citizenship 
and  property  that  any  one  can  possibly 
conceive  of;  all  taught  the  teachings  and 


255 


practice  of  the  officers,  organizers  and 
apostles  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  as- 
sociation.” 

If  this  gentleman  were  half  as  tender 
and  careful  for  the  young  bodies  of  these 
children  as  he  pretends  to  be  for  their 
young  minds,  then  he  would  close  his 
breakers  or  place  men  there  to  nick  his 
coal.  This  is  the  answer  the  president 
receives  from  him. 

Next  Mr.  Thomas:  “A  record  of  20 
killed,  over  40  injured,  and  with  constant 
and  increasing  destruction  of  dwellings, 
works,  machinery  and  railroads  by  mob 
violence,  with  no  proper  enforcement  of 
law  or  order  by  ine  proper  officials,  is  not 
the  time  to  act  on  Mr.  Mitchell  s sugges- 
tion of  this  morning  to  arbitrate  with 
men  not  in  our  employ.”  Still.  “Not  in 
our  employ.” 

Mr.  Markle  states:  “I  fully  endorse 

these  remarks  from  you.  and  as  an  Amer- 
ican citizen,  and  a citizen  of  the  com- 
monwealth of  Pennsylvania,  I now  ask 
you  to  perform  the  duties  vested  in  you 
as  president  of  the  United  States’— a 
modest  request,  from  this  gentleman,  who 
no  doubt  believed  that  the  president  of 
the  United  States  held  all  of  nis  vassals 
under  a tenure  of  a lease  at  will  and 
pleasure,  for  15%  cents  a day,  and  that  if 
President  Roosevelt  said  the  word  he 
could  tell  them  to  move  off  into  the  ocean 
just  as  Mr.  Marule  could  tell  his  em- 
ployes to  go.  (Uaughter.)  So  he  says: 
“Mr.  President,  you  do  your  duty,  and 
that  is  all  we  will  need.”  Then  he  goes 
on:  “A  record  of  twenty-one  murders,  a 
long  list  of  brutal  assaults,  houses  and 
bridges  dynamited,  daily  acts  of  violence 
now  taking  place,  and  several  washeries 
burned  down  are  actual  evidences  or  this 
condition  of  lawlessness  existing  there. 
Are  you  asking  us  to  deal  with  a set  of 
outlaws?  I can  hardly  conceive  of  such  a 
thought.  The  respectable  citizens  of  these 
United  States  will  insist  upon  the  of- 
ficers in  power  giving  to  the  citizens  of 
Pennsylvania  law  and  order,  and  the 
right  to  work  if  they  so  desire. 

“Mr.  President,  1 represent  the  indi- 
vidual coal  operators  and  in  addition 
thereto  we  represent  far  better  than  Mr. 
Mitchell  does  a majority  of  the  anthra- 
cite coal  workers,  including  some  17,000 
men  who  are  now  wording,  and  endeav- 
oring against  great  odds  to  relieve  the 
public  of  the  possibilities  of  a coal  fa- 
mine in  making  this  appeal  of  you.” 

And  then  Mr.  Baer  speaks  Sitting 
there,  presumably,  whilst  all  the  rest 
were  speaking,  he  comes  last: 

“The  ‘domestic  tranquility’  w'hich  the 
constitution  declares  is  the  chief  object 
of  government  does  not  exist  in  the  coal 
regions.  There  is  a terrible  reign  of  law- 
lessness and  crime  there.  Only  the  lives 
and  property  of  the  members  of  the 
secret,  oath-bound  order,  wh'ch  declare  1 
that  the  locals  should  'have  full  power  to 
suspend  operations  at  collieries,'  until  the 
non-union  men  joined  their  order,  are 
safe.  Every'  effort  is  made  to  prevent  th^ 
mining  of  coal;  and  when  mined.  Mitch- 
ell's men  dynamite  bridges  and  tracks, 
mob  non-union  men.  and  by'  all  manner 
of  violence  try  to  prevent  its  shipment  to 
relieve  the  public. 

"Under  these  conditions  we  decline  to 
accept  Mr.  Mitchell's  considerate  offer  to 
let  us  work  on  terms  he  names.  He  has 
no  right  to  come  from  Illinois  to  dictate 
terms  on  the  acceptance  of  which  an- 
archy and  crime  shall  cease  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. He  must  stop  his  people  from 
killing,  maiming  and  abusing  Pennsvlva- 


256 


nia  citizens  and  from  destroying  prop- 
erty.” 

Sarcasm  for  Baer. 

Surely  a temperate,  judicious,  business- 
like speech  to  make  to  the  president  of 
the  United  States  upon  this  occasion!  He 
showed  that  he  is  not  only  a business 
man  but  a constitutional  lawyer.  "The 
‘domestic  tranquility’  which  the  consti- 
tution declares  is  the  chief  object  of  gov- 
ernment does  not  exist  in  the  coal 
regions!”  I presume  he  is  more  familiar 
with  that  provision  of  the  constitution 
than  the  provision  of  the  constitution 
which  absolutely  forbids  any  man  from 
being  an  officer  in  a coal  company  and 
an  officer  in  a railroad  company  at  the 
same  time. 

These  gentlemen  were  meeting  at  the 
request  of  the  president  of  the  United 
States.  They  were  meeting,  not  because 
the  president  desired  to  settle  the  differ- 
ences between  them  and  their  employers, 
but  because  the  president  of  the  United 
States,  heeding  the  cry  and  prayers  of 
seventy  million  people,  feared  the  calam- 
ity that  would  come  upon  us  in  the  win- 
ter unless  some  settlement  was  reached. 
Mr.  Mitchell  said:  “I  am  willing,  I will 
turn  over  my  cause  to  you.  I will  do 
what  I have  been  ready  to  do  from  the 
first.  If  I am  wrong  I will  submit  it  to 
my  fellow-citizens  to  decide.  You  may 
appoint  a court  of  arbitrators  if  you  will 
do  it.  I will  accept  every  man  you  ap- 
point, and  we  will  submit  to  their  find- 
ings: and  in  the  meantime  our  men  will 
go  back  into  the  earth  and  bring  up  coal 
to  prevent  the  famine  that  otherwise 
must  come.” 

These  gentlemen  said:  "No;  oh,  no,  Mr. 
President;  this  is  not  what  we  demand. 
We  demand  more  soldiers,  more  guns, 
more  bayonets,  more  violence.  What  we 
want  is  that  you  will  send  the  army  of 
the  United  States  to  kill  these  anarch- 
ists, these  law-breakers,  these  criminals 
who  have  been  our  employes  for  fifty 
years.” 

Regarding  Violence. 

And  then  they  lied  to  the  president  of 
the  United  States.  Mr.  Thomas  and  Mr. 
Markle  told  the  president  of  the  United 
States  that  this  body  of  mine  workers 
had  committed,  one  said  twenty  and  the 
other  said  twenty-one,  murders:  and  that 
a condition  of  anarchy  and  violence  and 
turbulence  and  disorder  existed  from  one 
end  of  this  region  to  the  other— as  if,  in- 
stead of  this  '-ountry  being  settled  by 
peaceable,  quiet.  Chrisnan  men,  it  was 
inhabited  by  wild  beasts. 

They  have  had  Iheir  day  in  court — and 
I will  refer  to  this  in  a few  minutes. 
They  have  had  their  months  and  their 
weeks  in  court;  and  they  have  brought 
to  the  attention  of  this  commission  four 
men  who  were  killed,  not  one  of  whom 
was  murdered  within  the  meaning  of  this 
language,  although  one  was  severely 
beaten,  beaten  to  death  -not,  perhaps,  by 
mine  workers,  but  f am  going  to  discuss 
that  in  a few  minutes,  and  I will  try  to 
discuss  it  exactly  as  the  record  is.  But 
with  all  of  their  research  and  investiga- 
tion and  their  time  and  their  money  they 
have  brought  four  and  we  have  brought 
four— four  of  our  men  that  were  killed 
hy  them,  four  of  theirs  that  were  killed 
by  us.  And,  regrettable  as  it  is.  and  un- 
fortunate as  it  is.  the  penalty  perhaps  is 
not  too  great  a price  to  nay.  Nothing 
can  come  in  this  world  without  penal- 
ties; nothing  ever  did  come  or  ever  can 
come.  Tt  is  regrettable  that  that  Is  the 
law  of  life,  but  it  is  the  law  of  life,  and 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


we  must  recognize  the  law  of  life.  There 
is  no  evading  it;  and  it  had  better  be  rec- 
ognized than  be  treated  with  as  these 
gentlemen  propose  to  treat  the  union— as 
if  it  was  not  there. 

Again  Refused  to  Arbitrate. 

At  last,  for  the  sake  of  inducing  the 
president  of  the  United  States  to  send 
soldiers  and  bayonets  to  shoot  down  in- 
offensive men  and  women  and  children, 
if  need  be,  their  employes  and  their 
wards  for  fifty  years,  they  deliberately 
told  him  that  twenty  or  twenty-one  mur- 
ders had  been  committed  by  this  set  of 
desperadoes;  and  they  again  refused  to 
arbitrate,  clear  up  until  tlm  first  of  Octo- 
ber. They  met  the  request  of  the  presi- 
dent with  contempt.  "Although  the  win- 
ter is  coming,  we  are  still  the  masters. 
You,  Mr.  President,  have  one  duty  to  per- 
form, and  that  is  to  send  out  the  stand- 
ing army  to  help  us  mine  coal  and  shoot 
down  the  men  who  have  made  our  for- 
tunes for  us.” 

But  he  did  not  do  it. 

Now,  I will  discuss,  in  a few  moments, 
the  question  of  violence.  But  I want  to 
refer  briefly  to  some  other  reasons,  to 
show  that  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
this  whole  strike  was  precipitated  be- 
cause of  the  blind  and  stupid  resistance 
of  these  gentlemen  to  the  organization. 
They  wanted  to  destroy  it. 

I want  to  refer  to  the  action  of  Mr. 
Coxe,  or  the  Coxe  company.  After  the 
strike,  Mr.  Kudelich,  the  superintendent 
of  the  Coxe  company,  sent  out  this  let- 
ter to  his  employes: 

“I  have  held  back  your  approval  be- 
cause the  records  show  that  you  have 
violated  rules  of  the  company,  regard- 
less of  repeated  admonitions.  Before  you 
are  employed,  I want  you  to  understand 
that  I do  not  care  about  what  transpires 
In  your  meetings;  I do  not  care  about 
what  instructions  you  receive  from  Tom, 
Dick  and  Harry,  in  connection  with  some 
society  or  union;  but  I want  you  to  un- 
derstand that  no  rules  of  a society  or 
union  shall  interfere  with  the  workings 
of  Coxe  Brothers  & Co.  Therefore,  you 
either  make  up  your  minds  to  comply 
with  the  orders  you  receive  from  the  offi- 
cers of  this  company,  and  you  comply 
strictly  with  all  existing  rules,  or  do  not 
start  again  with  this  company.  No  union 
or  society  shall  interfere;  and  it  is  first 
of  all  necessary  that  you  make  up  your 
mind  that  you  will,  while  employes,  con- 
sider the  orders  of  this  company  para- 
mount to  any  other  instructions  which 
In  any  way  would  interfere  with  tie 
workings  of  Coxe  Brothers  & Co.'s  co  - 
lieries;  and  except  you  can  faithfully 
promise  to  do  so,  you  shall  not  be  re- 
employed. (Signed)  Kudelich,  foreman.” 

And  then,  as  if  that  was  not  enough,  1 e 
posted  this  notice  upon  his  door. 

"Notice — Any  man  who,  by  int'mida- 
tlon  or  moral  persuasion  attempts  to  in- 
duce a co-employe  to  leave  or  join  a 
society,  or  anybody  who  objects  to  work- 
ing with  another  employe  because  he 
does  not  belong  to  the  society  will  1 e 
discharged.” 

And  yet  they  tell  us,  "oh.  we  have  not 
any  objection  to  the  union.” 

And  then,  after  the  strike  was  over, 
and  the  men  had  gone  back  to  work  in 
faithful  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  tl  e 
chief  magistrate  of  the  country,  and  to 
relieve  the  sufferings  of  the  people,  ai  d 
to  wait  patiently  through  months  and 
through  weary  weeks  the  deliberations 
of  thl*  commission,  Mr.  Olyphant,  the 
president  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson, 


writes  this  letter  to  Mr.  Rose,  his  su- 
perintendent: 

Mr.  Olyphant’s  Letter. 

“C.  C.  Rose,  Esq.,  Superintendent. 

"Dear  Sir:  The  ‘strike  Is  ended,’  so  the 
message  reads.  Now  to  sum  up. 

"First— We  are  to  stand  by  the  men 
who  have  stood  by  us.  but  caution  them 
against  any  intemperance  of  language  cr 
threats  to  others.  In  other  words,  if 
they  ‘are  reviled,  revile  not  again.’  It 
takes  two  parties  to  make  a fight. 

“Second — Make  allowances,  so  far  as 
possible,  for  men  who  are  coming  back 
and  treat  them  kindly  on  their  return. 
Give  a good  welcome.  They  are  not  all 
bad  who  are  misled. 

“Third — If  more  men  return  than  can 
be  employed  at  once,  a fair  selection 
should  be  made.  ■ 

"Fourth— Gross  agitators  and  men  who 
are  known  to  have  been  guilty  of  crime 
cannot  be  employed. 

“Fifth — You  should  instruct  you  fore- 
men to  act  discreetly,  and  by  fair  deal- 
ing try  to  regain  the  good  will  and  re- 
establish kindly  feelings  toward  the  men 
under  him.  Yours  very  truly, 

“R.  M.  Olyphant.” 

The  Chairman:  That  is  a pretty  fair 
letter  for  an  operator,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  just  what  I was 
going  to  say.  You  must  have  gotten  the 
words  right  out  of  me. 

The  Chairman:  That  shows  we  agree. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I hope  we  agree  all  the 
way,  through,  judge. 

Now,  I want  to  give  every  man  full 
credit;  and  I do  not  condemn  any  man. 
even’ if  he  does  not  agree  with  any  of 
my  propositions,  although  I may  think 
he  is  wrong.  This  letter  is  a very  strange 
mixture  of  genuine,  sincere,  Christian 
spirit  with  the  feudal  ideas  of  the  owner 
and  the  employer.  Now,  I have  not  any 
doubt  but  what  Mr.  Olyphant  was  sin- 
cere and  genuine  in  this  letter;  and  when 
he  says,  "If  any  man  reviles  you.  revile 
not  again.”  no  man  can  say  more  or  do 
better.  That  is  a kindly  way  to  look  at 
it,  and  he  meant  right. 

But  good  men  make  their  mistakes,  the 
same  as  bad  men.  In  fact,  I never  knew 
exactly  how  to  distinguish  between  tl  e 
good  and  the  bad.  We  all  of  us  get  so 
far  over  on  the  one  side  or  the  other  that 
we  do  not  even  know,  ourselves,  whether 
we  are  good  or  bad.  (Laughter.)  But  let 
us  look  at  this  letter  just  as  it  is. 

Compared  with.  Slavery. 

Here  is  a man.  who,  I understand,  is 
75  years  old,  or  nearly  75  years  old— un- 
doubtedly a man  of  good,  kind  spirit  and 
heart,  who  wants  to  do  right  as  he  sees 
the  right,  educated  in  the  old  ideas  of 
political  enonomy  and  of  business  econo- 
my, without  any  possible  conception  of 
true  democracy  or  the  real  rights  of 
man,  except  in  so  far  as  kindness  or 
charity  are  concerned.  He  writes  this 
letter  very  much  on  the  lines  that  a 
kind,  generous,  Christian  slave  owner 
might  have  written  to  his  boss:  and  the 
old  slave  owners  were  kind  gentlemen, 
many  of  them,  as  good  as  the  rest  of  us, 
although  the  time  was  that  I did  n<  t 
think  so.  It  was  the  way  they  lived,  and 
their  point  of  view  of  life,  just  the  sail  e 
as  it  is  with  you  and  me  and  with  eveiy 
man  who  lives. 

This  man  had  no  idea  that  his  men 
should  organize,  should  build  up  their 
organization,  should  make  a collective 
bargain,  should  send  their  represeii  a- 


tives  to  meet  him  in  his  office.  He  had 
refused  it  by  letter,  he  had  refused  it  by 
telegram,  he  had  denied  every  request, 
no  doubt  moved  by  a mixed  feeling  of 
duty  and  business. 

The  strike  is  over;  and  he  writes  to  his 
superintendent  and  says:  “Be  good  to 

these  men.  They  are  poor,  misguided  fel- 
lows, because  they  chose  to  follow  John 
Mitchell  instead  of  me.”  Now,  part  of 
this  is  Mr.  Olyphant’s  language  and  part 
is  mine.  I call  your  attention  to  that 
fact,  because  our  language  is  so  much 
alike  that  you  might  not  know  it. 
(Laughter.)  But  he  says:  “Be  good  to 

these  men.  They  are  really  good  fel- 
lows. All  men  are  not  bad  who  have 
been  misled.” 

Misled  how?  Misled  by  whom?  Misled 
because  they  united  with  their  fellows; 
misled  because  they  joined  this  union; 
misled  because  they  struck;  misled  be- 
cause they  made  these  demands,  which 
we  insist  that  every  intelligent  employer 
of  labor  must  recognize,  and  recognize 
very  soon,  or  he  will  be  relegated  to  the 
past.  He  will  be  an  ex-employer.  There 
will  be  nobody  to  work  for  him,  and  no- 
body to  buy  his  wares. 

Then  he  said,  “Take  these  men  back, 
excepting  gross  agitators  and  men  who 
have  committed  crime.”  Now,  we  wi  1 
not  quarrel  with  him  about  the  men  who 
committed  crime,  although  I would  tale 
them  back  whether  the  bosses  would, 
and  wipe  the  whole  slate  off  and  start 
over  new;  I would  forgive  them  all  be- 
cause I know  and  I understand  that 
there  is  not  one  of  those  men,  on 

either  side,  who  committed  crime  dur- 
ing those  long,  dark  days,  Dut  they  were 
acting  according  to  the  bitter,  cruel  en- 
vironment in  which  they  lived  and  they 
could  not  help  it.  Those  men,  master 
and  man  alike,  whether  they  held  the 
whip  of  starvation  above  these  poor  men 
who  were  fighting  for  liberty  and  life, 
and  for  the  generations  unborn,  they 
did  not  mean  it,  and  I know  they  wou  d 
not  have  done  it,  and  I know  if  a hun- 
gry person  would  go  to  them  they  would 
give  them  food,  and  yet  they  condemn  me 
for  sending  money  to  keep  their  children 
alive.  I would  forgive  those,  too,  who, 
in  their  blindness  ana  their  ignorance 
and  their  violence,  struck  out  blindly, 
sometimes  cruelly,  sometimes  brutally, 
but  still  struck,  they  believed,  for  this 
cause  which  is  infinitely  just  and  whicli 
sometime  must  prevail.  I would  forgive 
every  one  upon  both  sides,  just  as  I would 
approve  of  the  policy  of  President  Lin- 
coln when  he  issued  a general  amnes'.y 
against  those  men  who  had  fought  to 
destroy  the  country  of  which  he  was  the 
chief.  Men  are  not  so  much  responsible. 
Men  to  judge  others  must  place  them- 
selves in  the  condition  which  surrounds 
the  man.  They  must  consider  his  intel- 
lect, his  vision,  his  life,  his  environment, 
and  then,  if  they  are  willing  to  take  the 
responsibility  of  judges,  let  them  judge. 
Fcr  my  part,  I prefer  to  leave  the  judg- 
ment to  somebody  else— I do  not  wish  to 
make  it. 

Question  of  Life  Vs.  Death. 

So  with  this  letter  of  Mr.  Olyphant,  he 
plainly  breathes  into  that  letter  a Chris- 
tian spirit,  which  I have  no  doubt  is  gen- 
uine and  sincere,  but  at  the  same  time 
he  says  that  a man  who  is  a gross  agita- 
tor, which,  in  the  hands  of  a boss,  or  a 
superintendent,  or  even  Mr.  Olyphant, 
might  mean  anything  in  the  world,  any 
man  who  went  out  and  made  speeches 
and  urged  these  men  to  stand  together, 
tjiat  those  men  must  not  be  taken  back. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


He  says  the  men  that  went  out  on  this 
strik*  were  misguided  men,  misguided 
because  they  struck.  This  is  an  example 
of  one  of  the  best  of  the  men  in  charge 
of  this  region.  It  shows  that  even  the 
best  were  permeated  with  the  spirit 
which,  deep  down  beneath  everything 
else,  was  the  feeling  that  at  all  hazards, 
the  union  must  be  destroyed.  This  was 
exactly  what  it  meant.  This  contest, 
upon  the  one  side,  was  for  its  life,  upon 
the  other  for  its  death,  because,  as  Mr. 
Baer  said,  no  man  can  serve  two  mas- 
ters, and  there  can  be  no  divided  alle- 
giance in  the  coal  regions.  I am  not 
quarreling  with  Mr.  Olyphant,  neither,  in 
spite  of  what  seems  to  be,  am  I quar- 
reling with  Mr.  Baer.  I admired  the  abil- 
ity, and,  in  many  respects,  the  breadth 
of  the  able  and  instructive  paper  that  he 
read  to  this  commission.  I am  glad  he 
read  it,  not  that  it  helps  my  side,  for  I 
couldn’t  say  that,  but  it  is  well  to  get 
the  views  of  these  different  men.  It  is 
well  that  this  commission  and  this  coun- 
try, so  far  as  possible,  should  understand 
the  standpoint  of  men.  I am  glad  to  get 
them  upon  my  side,  and  I will  give  all 
these  gentlemen  with  whom  I have  asso- 
ciated for  these  months  the  credit  to 
say  that  they  seemed  to  be  glad  to  get 
them  upon  their  'side,  and  both  together 
will  no  doubt  work  out  good. 

But  What  I wish  to  say  is,  that  all  of 
the  evils  and  trouble  of  this  great  strike 
grew  from  the  blind  determination  of 
these  men  that  there  should  be  no  organ- 
ization of  labor.  I call  your  attention,  as 
another  example  of  this,  to  the  Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna  and  Western  union. 
Major  Wrarren,  with  an  ingenuity  which 
seemed  sincere,  but  I hardly  think  it  was, 
although  he  is  an  estimable  gentleman, 
I give  him  credit  for  things  that  are 
not  quite  sincere,  because  he  is  a very 
brilliant  man,  but  he  says  to  this  com- 
mission was  there  anything  wrong  in 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  West- 
ern getting  up  an  organization  of  their 
own,  was  there?  Now,  Major  'Warren,  I 
take  it,  from  his  address,  is  just  begin- 
ning in  his  study  of  social  economics.  I 
do  not  want  to  discourage  a young  man 
starting  out,  because  he  has  done  pretty 
well,  but  after  he  has  read  further,  as 
far  as  I have,  he  will  not  need  to  go  but 
just  little  further,  and  if  he  does  not 
know  now,  he  will  find  that  the  very  first 
thing  the  employers  attempt  to  do  when 
a union  is  about  to  be  formed  among 
their  men  is  to  get  up  another  union, 
man  it  with  their  officers  and  tie  it  down 
with  conditions.  It  is  not  possible  that 
the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
people  did  not  know  that.  If  they  had 
read  the  history  of  trade  unionism  from 
the  beginning  they  would  have  found  it. 
out.  It  has  been  attempted  over  and  over 
again  in  the  history  of  the  world  from 
the  beginning,  and  I suppose  will  be  to 
the  end.  So  they  sent  their  bosses  out 
among  their  employes  and  asked  them 
to  form  a union.  Let  me  read  you  what 
this  union  was  to  do.  They  asked  them 
to  leave  the  other  union,  too,  as  one  of 
the  witnesses  testified.  Some  of  them  re- 
fused to  do  it.  This  is  the  kind  of  union 
they  wanted  to  form  of  their  employes: 
“The  object  of  this  union  shall  be  to  pro- 
mote the  interest  of  miners,  laborers  and 
all  employes  of  the  D.,  L.  and  W.  mines 
morally,  socially  and  financially  and  to 
spread  intelligence  among  them.  It  is  an 
organization  for  the  protection  of  men 
who  believe  that  by  proper  action  they 
can  secure  justice  and  have  their  griev- 
ances remedied  without  resorting  to 
strikes.  An  organization  independent 


257 


from  any  other  organization  controlled  by 
soft  coal  or  outside  interference.” 

D.,  L.  & W.  Union. 

Everybody,  whether  miner  or  boss,  was 
eligible.  I know  that  Major  Warren  real- 
ly understood  what  this  meant.  I know 
that  anybody  who  has  the  first  knowledge 
upon  these  questions  understood  that 
when  the  bosses  and  foremen  went 
through  the  mines  and  urged  their  men 
to  give  up  their  union  and  join  this,  they 
were  doing  it  to  destroy  the  Mine  Work- 
ers’ union.  I will  not  say  that  it  is  not 
possible  that  they  might  have  gotten 
some  benefit  out  of  this  union.  I do  not 
want  to  misjudge  these  men.  I do  not 
pretend  for  a moment  that  every  act  of 
their  lives  has  been  a selfish  act  and 
that  sometimes  they  are  not  good  and 
kind.  But  I do  say  that  this  old  dodge 
of  forming  a union  by  the  bosses  and  the 
employers,  and  getting  them  to  leave 
their  own  union,  is  so  old,  and  gray, 
and  decrepit,  that  I would  not  have  sup- 
posed it  would  have  found  countenance 
among  the  anthracite  mine  owners  of 
Pennsylvania.  I would  have  supposed 
that  even  they  would  have  gone  beyond 
that  stage. 

After  the  Strike. 

That  is  not  all.  It  is  not  half.  I am 
afraid  when  I get  through  I shall  have 
to  ask  leave  to  print,  although  I do  not 
suppose  the  commission  would  ask  leave 
to  read  after  it  was  printed.  After  this 
strike  was  over  and  the  men  went  back 
loyally  and  faithfully,  they  laid  dov\n 
their  clubs  and  their  dynamite  and  they 
took  up  their  shovels  and  their  picks  and 
they  did  their  part.  But  Mr.  Coxe,  or 
somebody  up  there  who  runs  Mr.  Coxe’s 
business,  refused  to  take  back  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty-nine  men  whose  names 
have  been  given,  and  you  will  find  them 
in  the  record  of  this  case  when  you  read 
it  through,  and  the  men  said  no,  we  will 
not  go  back  and  leave  four  hundred  and 
thirty-nine  of  our  men  idle,  and  finally 
they  met  Mr.  Kudelich  and  he  reduced 
the  number  to  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
five,  and  they  still  said  they  would  not 
go  back,  and  up  to  the  time  this  commis- 
sion met  in  Scranton  and  during  its  de- 
liberations, Coxe  Bros  had  not  com- 
menced operations  because  they  refused 
to  take  back  one  hundred  and  thirty-five 
of  those  men,  their  employes,  who  must 
have  been  gross  agitators,  not  men  who 
had  committed  crime,  for  no  attempt  has 
been  made  from  the  beginning  to  re- 
instate any  unfortunate  person  who  has 
been  charged  with  crime.  Not  the  slight- 
est. The  United  Mine  Workers  have  not 
asked  it,  although  I would  ask  it  and  l 
would  go  right  to  (he  presidents  and  ask 
it  and  I think  I would  get  it,  too.  No  ef- 
fort has  been  made  to  have  those  men 
taken  back  but  they  simply  refused  to 
take  back  these  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  men  because  they  were  gross  agita- 
tors. These  were  the  men  who  were  re- 
sponsible for  this  long  and  bloody  con- 
test and  they  could  not  go  to  work.  Not 
only  would  we  starve  them  into  submis- 
sion, but  when  all  the  miners  in  the  an- 
thracite region  had  listened  to  the  voice 
of  the  millions  who  were  calling  upon 
them  for  coal  and  had  ceased  hostilities 
and  gone  back  to  work,  they  would  still 
starve  them  and  their  wives  and  their 
children,  the  war  was  still  on  and  the 
one  hundred  and  thirty-five  must  fall  vic- 
tims to  it.  Mr.  Marltle  came  in  with  his 
long  list  that  he  refused,  and  there  is  not 
a company  in  this  region  that  did  not  re- 
fuse, not  because  men  had  committed 


258 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


crime,  gentlemen  of  the  commission,  but 
because  these  men  were  agitators  which 
the  snug  and  comfortable  class  of  the 
world  has  always  considered  the  most 
serious  offense  that  could  be  committed 
upon  them.  Agitators!  It  was  Garrison 
and  Phillips  and  John  Brown  and  this 
handful  of  men  who  could  not  be  forgiven 
before  the  war,  hut  who  will  be  rever- 
enced as  long  as  sentiments  of  humanity, 
justice  and  freedom  live  in  the  human 
breast.  Not  one  of  those  companies  but 
what  has  been  guilty. 

Discrimination. 

They  tell  us  there  has  been  no  discrimi- 
nation. I can  only  call  your  attention 
briefly  to  several  cases.  William  Hale 
was  refused  work  by  the  Delaware  and 
Hudson  on  account  of  the  union.  Balder- 
son  was  discharged  from  the  same  com- 
pany because  he  belonged  to  the  union. 
Miller  was  discharged  from  the  Erie  on 
account  of  the  strike.  Dreisbach,  of  the 
Lehigh  Valley,  was  refused  work  because 
he  struck.  John  Fetzer,  the  Reading  en- 
gineer— and  Mr.  Baer  said  will  you  point 
us  to  anything  the  Reading  nas  done 
which  is  wrong— I ask  you  gentlemen  to 
remember  John  Fetzer.  It  takes  a pretty 
big  man  as  a witness  to  stand  out  in  the 
remembrance  of  so  many  who  have 
been  called  in  this  hearing.  But  John 
Fetzer  was  an  old  man,  I think  sixty — 

The  Chairman:  Do  you  call  that  old? 

Mr.  Darrow:  He  was  a young  man  of 
sixty  (laughter),  with  a big  red  beard. 
He  had  held  his  hand  on  the  throttle 
while  he  lifted  coal  tip  from,  the  mines 
and  sent  the  empty  cars  back.  He  had 
held  his  hand  on  the  throttle  for  twelve 
hours  and  had  not  only  the  property  of 
the  company  resting  literally  in  the  hol- 
low of  his  hands,  but  the  lives  of  his  fel- 
low-workmen resting  in  the  hollow  of  his 
hands  and  in  the  judgment  of  his  brain 
for  twelve  hours  a day.  He  had  been  for 
more  than  thirty  years  an  engineer,  like 
James  Gallagher,  without  a black  mark 
against  his  name,  never  had  an  accident 
even,  no  life  entrusted  to  his  keeping  or 
his  care  had  ever  been  lost  and  no  acci- 
dent had  happened,  and  not  a pound  of 
coal  had  been  lost,  so  far  as  this  record 
shows.  But  he  struck  because  he  thought 
twelve  hours  was  too  long  to  work  and 
because  of  his  loyalty  to  the  other  men 
He  struck  for  eight  hours.  He  went  back 
to  get  his  job  and  a miserable  boss, 
clothed  with  a .'ittle  brief  authority  from 
the  great  president  of  the  Reading,  sec- 
ond-handed at  that,  getting  his  authority 
through  the  superintendent  and  maybe 
through  another  boss  above  him  yet,  this 
boss  says  no,  you  cannot  go  back  to  work 
because  you  have  been  an  agitator.  Fet- 
zer said  yes,  I agitated:  1 went  among 
the  men  in  this  strike  and  I told  them  to 
preserve  the  peace  and  sustain  the  law. 
This  boss  said,  that  does  not  make  any 
difference,  you  cannot  go  back  to  work. 
So  Fetzer  went  from  boss  to  boss  and 
was  refused  because  he  was  an  agitator. 
I want  to  say,  however,  in  justice  to  Mr. 
Veith,  for  whom  T have  a high  regard, 
that  he  sat  at  the  table  and  heard  this 
old  man’s  story,  this  young  man's  story. 
(Laughter.)  He  had  known  him  for  a 
good  many  years  and  he  went  out  with 
him  that  night  and  he  put  him  back  In 
his  place,  or  another  place  as  good. 

That  was  the  attitude  of  these  gentle- 
men, starting  with  the  president  and  run- 
ning clear  down  to  the  last  man  who  had 
the  least  bit  of  authority  over  his  fellow-* 
men,  and  they  brought  on  this  strike. 

They  did  not  stop  at  that.  You  will  re- 


member that  we  proved  that  in  the  midst 
of  this  strike  and  contest,  when  every- 
thing was  dependent  on  the  bravery,  loy- 
alty and  fidelity  of  these  men,  a miserable 
politician  named  Grimes,  who  had  divided 
his  time  between  being  the  boss  of  a coal 
mine  and  the  boss  of  a ward  up  in  Scran- 
ton, sent  for  two  men,  Ohara,  and  I 
do  not  recall  the  other  man’s  name  now, 
and  asked  them  to  come  down  to  Con- 
gressman Connell’s  headquarters,  that  he 
wanted  to  make  a proposition  to  them. 
There  he  told  them,  and  each  of  these 
men  detailed  it  thoroughly,  and  no  human 
being  has  come  before  this  commission 
to  deny  it,  and  it  is  true,  he  said  other 
men  are  giving  up  in  other  parts  of  the 
country  and  I want  you  to  go  into  your 
local  and  get  a resolution  passed  declar- 
ing the  strike  off  and  I will  give  you  two 
thousand  dollars  apiece.  Nobody  can  tell 
until  the  secret  records  of  this  case  are 
written,  if  that  day  shall  ever  come,  how 
many  of  these  poor  men,  driven  by  want, 
by  hunger,  by  the  cry  of  wife  and  chil- 
dren, and  bribed  by  the  gold  of  these  op- 
erators, sought  to  betray  and  did  betray 
their  locals  and  fellow-men  back  into  the 
slavery  of  their  employers  It  must  have 
been  few.  Here  and  there  throughout  the 
region  would  come  the  .word  that  some- 
one had  surrendered,  some  one  had  given 
up,  some  local  had  raised  the  white  flag 
of  truce,  but  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  this  great  contest  the  ranks  were 
almost  unbroken.  I have  no  doubt  in  the 
light  of  this  evidence  and  in  the  light  of 
what  I know  of  human  nature  that 
wherever  one  of  these  leaders  fell  by  the 
wayside,  it  was  not  only  in  obedience  to 
the  cries  of  hunger  and  want  and  suffer- 
ing, but  at  the  behest  of  the  operators’ 
gold.  I could  talk  much  longer  reciting 
to  you  the  instances  of  where  this  union 
has  been  discriminated  against  over  and 
over  again. 

The  Blacklist. 

I will  call  your  attention  to  only  one 
more  case  because  i must  pass  to  some 
thing  else.  They  say  there  is  no  blacklist. 
There  is  nothing  in  a name.  A man  may 
be  blacklisted  in  one  colliery,  or  at  all 
the  collieries  of  a company,  or  all  the 
companies  of  the  region.  If  a man  has  a 
home,  a family,  a cook  stove,  a barrel  of 
sour  kraut  in  the  cellar,  even  with  a one 
day  lease  at  the  will  and  pleasure  of  a 
mine  owner,  it  is  a pretty  serious  black- 
list if  you  do  not  give  him  work  at  that 
colliery  or  with  that  company,  and  you 
send  him  off  adrift  to  pick  his  way- 
through  the  region  and  see  if.  perchance, 
some  other  boss  vill  not  hire  him,  some 
other  boss  who  has  not  heard  his  name 
and  does  not  know  him.  A blacklist  is 
something  like  a boycott.  It  is  rot  the 
easiest  thing  to  prove  and  it  is  pretty 
cruel  in  its  effects.  I do  rot  like  either 
of  them.  I am  bound  to  defend  both  of 
them  within  the  limits.  I hardly-  expect  ;d 
that  these  gentlemen  would  come  into 
this  court  and  swear  that  they  had  a 
blacklist.  I am  free  to  say  I am  pretty- 
easy,  but  I did  not  look  for  that.  So  I 
was  not  surprised  when  man  after  man 
came  upon  the  stand  and  said  oh,  no,  we 
never  heard  of  a blacklist.  Although  we 
had  proven  over  and  over  again  where 
leaders  of  labor  organizations  had  been 
discharged,  turned  from  their  ’mines  and 
refused  work.  In  the  case  of  Ooxe  Bros, 
they  picked  out  every  man  wh"  was  a 
leader  and  there  was  not  one  officer  left. 
Their  sharpshooters  were  more  deadly- 
than  the  Boers  in  the  African  war.  They 
never  missed  an  officer  even  though  the 


officer  was  on  a -elief  committee.  That 
seemed  to  be  worse  than  any  of  the  rest, 
because  it  prevented  their  favorite  weap- 
on of  starvation  from  getting  in  its  dead- 
ly work.  Over  and  over  again  we  showed 
their  discrimination.  We  brought  poor 
old  James  Gallagher  back  here,  who  hail 
served  more  than  thirty-  y-ears  for  Markle 
and  who  was  turned  from  his  home  on  a 
November  night  and  who  is  still  without 
work,  although  as  clever  a man  as  I 
have  met  in  the  anthracite  region,  not 
even  barring  the  astute  lawyers  whom  it 
has  been  my  pleasure  to  meet.  I suppose 
the  facts  are,  if  -he  truth  was  known, 
that  James  Gallagher  is  too  clever.  If  a 
man  is  too  clever  he  is  not  any  good  as  a 
w-orking  man.  He  < ught  to  be  a lawyer, 
then  the  bosses  could  hire  him.  He 
w-ould  get  a better  salary.  But  if  he  is 
too  clever,  he  makes  trouble  and  1 pie- 
sume  that  is  the  reason.  But  that  is  an- 
other story,  I do  not  want  to  get  switched 
off.  There  was  one  man  however,  who 
could  not  get  out  of  his  blacklist  and  that 
was  Warrener.  He  is  a gentleman.  Mr. 
Warrener  is  a college  graduate,  a poL 
ished  gentleman,  the  superintendent  of  a 
large  company-.  There  was  a strike  at 
the  Maltby  colliery.  He  said  the  strike 
developed  into  a boycott.  Thirty  or  forty- 
men  were  engaged  in  this  strike.  They 
would  not  go  back  to  work.  I do  not 
know  whether  the  strike  was  just  or  un- 
just and  I do  not  ( are.  They-  thought  it 
was  just,  or  they  would  not  have  struck, 
and  they  had  a right  to  strike.  Finally- 
these  men  went  away  from  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  this  feudal  baron  and  got  a job 
w-ith  Thorne,  of  the  Temple  Iron  com- 
pany, another  feudal  baron.  These  thir- 
ty or  thirty-five  men.  who  had  laid  down 
their  tools  in  one  place  got  a job  in  an- 
other, and  thereupon,  Warrener,  under 
his  own  admission,  met  with  the  other 
superintendent  and  said  to  him.  "These 
men  are  strikers  in  the  Maltby-  colliery 
and  they-  should  not  have  work"  and 
they  w-ere  discharged. 

The  Chairman:  He  did  not  say-  that, 
he  mentioned  the  fact  they-  were  strikers. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  right.  He  said 
to  them  they  were  strikers  from  the 
Maltby  colliery.  I asked  him  why  he  said 
it  whether  to  get  them  discharged  or  not. 
and  he  quibbled  and  he  dodged,  and  le 
avoided,  and  he  evaded  and  he  gave  no 
excuse  whatever.  He  plainly  admitted 
that  it  was  on  account  of  this  strike  at 
his  colliery-  and,  I take  it.  that  anyone 
with  the  ordinary-  amount  of  intelligence 
must  know  that  it  was  true  and  that  Mr. 
Warrener  did  not  tell  the  whole  truth  to 
this  commission  upon  the  witness  stand, 
because  the  fact  remains  that  these  men 
struck  and  Warrener  went  to  Thorne  and 
told  him  of  it.  as  he  practically  admits, 
for  this  purpose  and  Thorne  discharged 
them,  every-  one  of  them.  Then  some 
trouble  was  made  about  it  and  some  rep- 
resentation was  made  to  Thorne  that 
they  did  not  go  there  under  false  pre- 
tenses and  he  took  them  back,  but  every 
single  one  of  them  was  discharged  be- 
cause, forsooth,  the  employer  of  this 
company,  not  content  to  boycott  his  men 
in  his  own  collieries  because  they  exer- 
cised the  right  of  common  American  citi- 
zens and  struck  and  refused  to  work,  he 
followed  these  men  throughout  the  an- 
thracite region  to  deny  them  bread  and  Io 
reduce  their  families  to  want. 

This  is  the  condition,  and  this  is  the 
grievous  offense  of  which  the  United  Mine 
Workers  are  guilty-— that  they  have  taken 
this  mass  of  men.  this  147.000  men,  that 
they  have  bound  them  together  in  one 


body  and  said  to  each  man:  “Here  is  a 
friend.  This  organization  is  your  friend. 
You  may  come  to  us  with  your  com- 
plaints and  your  grievances  and  your 
wrongs,  and  we  will  stand  by  you.”  And 
it  was  for  this,  for  this  determination 
upon  the  part  of  these  employes  tc  crush 
out  this  body  so  odious  to  them  that  this 
five  months’  strike  ensued. 

With  Regard  to  Crime, 

Now,  what  do  they  tell  us  about  it? 
“Ah,”  they  say,  “but  you  committed 
crime.”  I do  not  propose,  in  the  discus- 
sion of  this  case,  to  avoid  any  question  - 
any  question,  however  much  I might 
think  it  would  be  against  us.  The  light 
of  day,  so  far  as  possible,  must  fail  upon 
this  region;  and  men  who  wish  to  know 
and  who  wish  to  fairly  judge  must  pass 
judgment  upon  these  two  contending 
forces,  and  say  which  is  right  and  whlcn 
is  wrong,  and  how  far  each  was  right  and 
how  far  each  was  wrong. 

We  have  heard  the  evidence  in  this 
case.  We  came  here  demanding  more 
pay,  shorter  hours,  recognition  of  our 
union;  and  they  have  replied:  "You  are 

cutthroats  and  assassins  and  murderers 
and  outlaws,  and  therefore  you  will  work 
for  what  you  get!” 

Let  me  examine  that.  First,  it  is  no 
answer.  It  can  make  no  difference  in  any 
issue  in  this  case,  excepting  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  union,  what  violence  was 
committed  in  the  anthracite  region,  inat 
is  the  first  proposition.  It  can  make  no 
more  difference  in  the  determination  of 
this  commission  than  the  crimes  commit- 
ted by  the  operators;  and  they  have  been 
many,  if  you  call  violation  or  law  a 
crime,  which  it  is  not  always,  although 
sometimes  it  is.  (To  the  chairman):  No; 
I still  think  I am  right,  judge.  There  are 
violations  of  law  which  call  for  a civil 
remedy  and  others  which  call  for  a crim- 
inal remedy.  I am  speaking  of  what  Mr. 
Baer  calls  the  written  law;  1 am  not 
speaking  of  the  moral  law. 

The  Chairman:  I thought  you  were 
speaking  of  the  criminal  law. 

Mr.  Darrow:  No,  no;  I did  not  mean 
that  exactly.  Every  violation  of  criminal 
law,  of  course,  must  be  a crime.  I was 
referring  to  those  laws  about  rebates,  un- 
just tariffs,  ownership  of  coal  mines  by 
railroad  companies.  (I  think,  how-ever, 
that  those  are  all  criminal,  but  I have 
not  investigated  them.)  I do  nof  care 
anything  about  ihem.  They  have  nothing 
to  do  with  this  case.  We  are  not  inter- 
ested in  the  moral  character  or  the  moral 
obligations  of  any  of  these  gentlemen. 
We  are  only  interested  in  finding  out 
what  wages  we  can  get  out  of  them,  and 
under  what  terms  we  can  work  for  them; 
and  I do  not  ask  this  commission  to  go 
any  farther. 

What  about  the  crimes  that  they  have 
charged  to  us?  We  have  heard  a good 
deal  about  it  in  the  long  days  and  weeks 
this  commission  has  been  in  session.  The 
so-called  non-unionists  have  had  a law- 
yer or  lawyers  in  this  case.  They  have 
been  represented  at  this  court;  and  they 
say  they  have  been  beaten  stoned, 
abused,  called  “scabs,”  and  sometimes 
killed. 

I do  not  admit  that  anybody  hates  suf- 
fering or  injustice  any  more  than  1.  I 
hope  nobody  does;  because  if  they  do, 
they  suffer  a good  deal.  I do  not  like  it. 
I have  not  an  enemy  in  the  world  whom 
I would  like  to  cause  any  suffering;  and 
I do  not  really  like  to  say  unkind  things 
about  Mr.  Baer,  although  I may  seem  to 
like  to.  And  I am  sincerely  sorry  that 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


any  workingman  or  any  other  man  caused 
any  kind  of  suffering  in  the  anthracite 
regions.  I am  sorry  I could  not  help  it; 
if  I could  have  helped  it  I would  have.  I 
have  no  doubt  Mr.  Mitchell  would.  1 
have  no  doubt  Mr.  Nicholls  would.  1 
have  no  doubt  that  even  the  men  wno 
held  the  club  in  their  hands  would  have 
avoided  it  if.  in  their  minds,  and  under 
the  way  they  saw  life  and  the  way  they 
were  surrounded,  they  could  have  helped 
it.  I have  not  the  -slightest  doubt  of  it. 

I want  to  discuss  this  question,  gentle- 
men, as  broadly  as  I can.  Unless  this 
commission  views  it  broadly  it  seems  to 
me  they  are  not  fitted  to  grapple  with 
this  great  -question  that  must  be  decided 
by  them.  I mean  to  discuss  it  in  the 
light  of  what  really  is,  and  what  must  be 
recognized  by  all  thinking  men,  however 
much  we  may  deplore  some  things  an! 
wish  the  world  had  been  made  differently 
from  what  it  is. 

Who  were  these  men,  first  of  all?  Who 
were  they?  The  investigation  of  the  sub- 
ject of  crime  has  for  many  years  been 
rather  a hobby  of  mine,  until  I may  have 
gone  all  wrong,  and  come  to  believe  that 
in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word 
there  is  not  any  such  thing.  There  are 
acts  which  produce  social  disorder,  and 
which  are  anti-social;  but  it  is  neither 
just  nor  logical  nor  humane  to  say  that 
those  acts  necessarily  come  from  a brain 
that  is  better  or  worse  than  mine  or  any 
other  man's.  I want  to  discuss  these  acts 
as  acts  of  men  under  these  conditions, 
and  see  who  was  responsible,  and  what 
was  the  measure  of  responsibility. 

Non-Union  Men’s  Lawyers. 

First,  who  are  thev?  Counsel  have 
come  in  here  specially  employed  for  this 
purpose— not  openly  and  bravely,  in  the 
clear  light  of  day,  but  secretly  and  cov- 
ertly and  under  false  pretenses.  I do  not 
care  how  many  times  they  prove  that 
crimes  have  been  committed  in  this 
region,  if  they  prove  it  in  the  right  way 
and  under  the  right  circumstances.  But 
the  operators,  for  some  mysterious  rea- 
son, thought  their  case  would  be  strong- 
er if  they  hired  some  lawyer  who  pre- 
tended to  represent  somebody  else,  and 
let  him  appear  before  this  commission 
to  use  his  clients  as  a club,  just  as  they 
used  them  from  the  beginning  of  this 
strike  until  the  last  word  is  spoken  to 
this  body.  They  must  take  that  respon- 
sibility. Their  case  would  have  been 
stronger  if  they  had  presented  this  evi- 
dence themselves,  instead  of  coming  here 
and  asking  a lawyer  to  go  upon  the  rec- 
ord in  this  case  as  if  he  had  betrayed  his 
clients,  which  he  did  not;  as  if  he  came 
into  thjs  court  and  filed  a petition  ask- 
ing this  commission  to  raise  his  client's 
wages  twenty  per  cent.,  to  shorten  his 
hours  to  eight,  to  help  him,  and  then 
spend  two  or  three  long  weeks  and  half 
a day’s  argument  and  never  make  one 
reference  to  anything  that  could  help  his 
client,  but  only  use  him  as  the  scab  is  al- 
ways used — to  do  the  dirty  work  of  the 
employer  and  to  defeat  the  honest  as- 
pirations of  the  men  and  the  organization 
that  would  seek  to  better  the  conditions 
of  their  fellow-men.  (Applause.) 

That  is  the  way  they  have  come  into 
this  case;  and  they  have  told  us  that  our 
men  are  assassins  and  cutthroats.  Now, 
is  that  true? 

They  committed  some  things  that  are 
called  crimes,  just  as  some  are  commit- 
ted every  day  in  Philadelphia — more,  but 
as  disconnected  and  dissociated  with  any- 
thing else,  just  as  others  are  committed 


259 


every  day  in  the  same  region  in  which 
this  investigation  and  this  terrible  strike 
took  place— more,  perhaps,  but  as  discon- 
nected, excepting  that  they  anew  out  ot 
the  passions  and  the  feelings  and  the 
struggles  of  this  great  contest  as  any 
crimes  are  disconnected  from  any  other 
acts.  In  a sense  they  are  disconnected, 
and  in  a sense  they  are  connected. 

Whenever  you  raise  the  price  of  wheat 
it  means  that  more  men  commit  crime. 
Whenever  you  raise  the  price  of  coal  it 
means  that  more  men  commit  crime;  be- 
cause, after  all,  natural  laws  control  the 
universe,  and  ever  must  control  the  uni- 
verse. And  the  feelings  and  the  despairs 
and  the  hopes  and  the  criminal  instincts 
of  men  grow  from  this  bitter  contest,  and 
would  grow  from  it  in  any  country  in 
the  world  and  in  any  age  of  the  world, 
and  will  do  so  so  long  as  man  has  aspira- 
tions and  fears  and  instincts.  And  it 
matters  not  what  is  the  finding  of  this 
commission;  they  cannot  cure  this  condi- 
tion, and  they  cannot  change  it.  It  is  a 
natural  condition. 

The  Chairman:  These  statistics  of 
crime  cannot  justify  crime. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Oh,  no.  Well,  I want  to 
say  a little  about  that  in  a few  minutes 
I do  not  expect  that  many  of  this  com- 
mission would  agree  with  my  view  upon 
that  question,  and  it  is  not  rnateriai  to 
my  side  of  the  |uestion  whether  they  do 
or  not.  In  my  philosophy  these  men  and 
all  of  us  are  the  product  of  our  heredity, 
of  our  environment.  We  cannot  help  it. 
I do  not  believe  any  man  has  the  right  to 
judge  his  fellow  in  any  of  these  relations. 
(Applause.)  I cannot  pronounce  one  of 
them  a criminal.  I have  no  right  to  pro 
nounce  one  of  them  a criminal.  There  is 
not  any  man  who  can  honestly  and  seri- 
ously ask  himself  the  question,  “Had  I 
been  born  as  this  man  was,  had  I been 
reared  as  he  was.  had  I suffered  what  he 
did  and  undergone  what  he  did.  would  I 
have  done  any  different  from  him?"  and 
be  sure  that  he  would  not. 

I cannot  say  that  I would  have  been  in 
any  different  position  from  the  poor,  un- 
fortunate Pole.  who.  in  his  clouded  in 
tellect,  felt  it  his  duty  to  strike  Winston 
over  the  head  with  a club,  deeply  as  I 
regret  it.  I cannot  say  that  I would  be 
in  any  different  position  from  Mr.  Baer 
had  I been  born  under  his  environment 
and  lived  under  his  surroundings.  I do 
not  mean  to  condemn  either  one  of  them 
in  this  case;  and  I thirk  it  is  the  only 
broad  and  fair  and  logical  -way  to  look 
at  it. 

The  Chairman:  Do  you  think  it  right 
to  tell  the  man  who  struck  down  Winston 
that  it  was  his  environment  that  mad 
him  do  it? 

Mr.  Darrow.  I should  tc-ll  him  so.  and 
I do  not  think  he  would  be  a bit  more  apt 
to  do  it  again.  But  that  is  another  ques- 
tion. I would  go  as  fast  as  I could  to 
tell  him  not  to.  to  urge  the  reasons  why 
he  should  not.  as  I would  to  Mr.  Baer  to 
tell  him  he  should  not  have  precipitated 
this  crisis  upon  the  country.  But  I do 
not  think  it  does  any  good  to  scold  either 
one  of  them  after  it  is  over,  and  I would 
not  do  it.  I would  approach  them  upon 
an  entirely  different  basis  from  that;  and 
I think  the  whole  philosophy  of  life 
would  teach  us  to  approach  them  upon  an 
entirely  different  basis  from  that. 

But  who  are  these  men?  In  the  civil 
war  you  found  the  whole  section  of  the 
South  armed.  Th  ?y  armed  their  men  and 
their  boys  and  sometimes  their  women 
and  sent  them  out  to  slaughter  us.  and 
the  whole  North  armed  their  men  and 


260 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


their  boys  and  sent  them  to  slaughter 
them— all  of  them  honest,  absolutely  hon- 
est. There  is  no  man  who  loves  justice 
who  can  s^'  that  as  a man  with  high 
and  noble  instincts  General  Lee  was  not 
the  peer  of  General  Grant.  One  was 
fighting  for  liberty,  the  other  fighting  for 
slavery,  but  both  fighting  for  the  right 
as  God  gave  it  to  them  to  see  the  right. 
Neither  was  responsible  for  the  condi- 
tions under  which  he  lived.  A great  con- 
flict placed  both  these  men  where  they 
were;  and  it  is  not  possible  that  you  can 
have  a conflict  that  takes  in  1)0,000  men, 
women  and  children  that  will  not  leave 
its  victims. 

You  can  not  put  up  a twenty-story 
building  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  but 
that  a certain  number  of  men  must  die — 
die  because  of  it;  and  although  the  nar- 
row reasoner  may  say'  there  is  no  con- 
nection. there  is  a connection.  It  is  all 
due  to  the  social  relations  of  man,  and  it 
all  falls  under  natural  law. 

Are  the  men  criminals  as  a class?  Does 
this  commission  believe  that  that  poor 
Pole,  whatever  his  name,  who  struck 
AVinston  over  the  back  of  his  head  with 
a club  would  have  done  it  under  other 
conditions  and  other  environments?  AArhy, 
he  was  a man  who  took  his  dinner  pail  in 
his  hand  day  after  day  and  went  down 
in  the  mines  to  earn  money  for  his  wife 
and  his  children.  He  was  a man  un- 
doubtedly—although  I never  saw  him  and 
do  not  know  his  name,  and  do  not  care 
for  his  name— I will  guarantee  he  was  a 
man  who,  if  AVinston  had  come  to  him 
hungry',  suffering,  to  his  door,  would  have 
taken  him  in  and  given  him  succor  and 
help.  Pie  was  a man  who  did  this  deed 
in  what  he  conceived,  in  his  blind  ignor- 
ance, and  his  passion,  to  be  a duty  to 
his  family  and  society,  although  I believe, 
and  all  our  leaders  believe  that  in  this  he 
was  wrong. 

The  Chairman:  I hope  I shall  not  en- 
counter a man  who  thinks  it  is  his  duty. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Well,  he  would  not  do  it. 
Does  your  honor  believe  that  if  this  man 
were  out  of  jail  and  met  you  on  the 
street  he  would  rob  you,  or  kill  you? 
Under  no  sort  of  circumstances.  These 
conditions  come  from  something  entirely 
different  from  that.  It  is  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent class  of  criminals — if  there  are 
classes  of  criminals.  AVe  are  told  by 
these  gentlemen  that  our  clients,  the 
Mine  Workers,  are  criminals,  anarchists, 
destroyers;  that  they'  deserve  no  mercy' 
and  no  justice  from  any  court. 

The  Chairman:  Is  not  that  rather  ex- 

treme, Mr.  Darrow? 

Mr.  Darrow:  AA^ell.  a little.  (Laughter.) 
We  are  told  anyway'  that  they  are  an- 
archists, criminals,  cutthroats,  and  as- 
sassins. 

The  Chairman:  That  is  not  much  bet- 
ter. (Laughter.) 

Mr.  Darrow:  I am  quoting  all  these 
words.  AA'e  are  not  told  directly  that 
they  deserve  no  justice,  and  yet  this  evi- 
dence is  arrayed  in  this  court  for  no 
purpose  except  to  influence  the  judgment 
of  this  court;  nothing  else.  If  this  evi- 
dence has  no  hearings  upon  the  wages 
you  shall  give,  upon  the  hours  y'ou  shall 
give,  upon  the  questions  involved  in  this 
case — and  they  say  the  recognition  of  the 
union  is  not  involved — then  it  has  no  bear- 
ing in  this  case. 

One  Judgment  Already. 

The  Chairman:  I can  say  now  that  this 
commission  do  not  believe  the  United 
Mine  Workers  were  assassins,  cutthroats 
pr  criminals.  (Applause.) 


Mr.  Darrow:  I have  had  no  doubt  of  it, 
judge,  from  the  beginning.  (Applause.) 

I have  visited  their  homes,  as  this  com- 
mission has  visited  their  homes.  1 know 
it  is  not  true.  I do  not  care  what  lan- 
guage they  speak,  whether  it  is  English 
or  not.  I do  not  care  how  strong  their 
passions  or  their  feelings.  I know  they 
are  men,  like  us.  I have  visited  their 
little  homes,  and  on  their  walls  in  almost 
ey'ery'  instance,  no  matter  what  language 
they  speak,  you  would  find  the  picture  of 
the  Madonna  and  her  child,  with  its  same 
lesson  in  every  language  and  in  every 
clime.  You  can  not  tell  me  that  those 
people,  no  matter  what  they  do.  when 
moved  by'  strong  feelings,  strong  desires 
or  great  provocation — no  matter  what 
they  do — that  they'  have  not  the  same  in- 
stincts of  love  and  pitv,  and  hope,  and 
charity  and  kindness  that  are  the  herit- 
age of  every-  man  who  lives.  I have  found 
that,  and  upon  their  walls  also  I have 
found  the  picture  of  John  Mitchell.  You 
need  not  tell  me  that  the  one  picture 
comes  from  the  feeling  of  love  and  devo 
tion  and  reverence,  and  that  the  other  is 
born  with  the  feelings  of  the  brute,  of 
passion,  of  hatred,  and  crime.  They'  both 
come  from  the  same  thing,  and  in  the 
organization  no  matter  what  it  does,  any' 
organization  that  could  take  that  hetero- 
genous mass,  drawn  from  every  nation 
on  earth,  from  every  land  and  every 
clime,  and  weld  it  into  one  common  homo 
geneous  mass,  with  common  aims  and  as- 
pirations and  hopes — any  such  organiza- 
tion must  be  grand  and  glorious  and  do- 
ing good  on  the  earth.  (Applause.) 

Father  Hussey  told  us  that  when  the 
soldiers  came  to  Hazleton  on  one  Sunday 
morning  his  people  were  at  church.  It 
Father  Hussey'  is  felling  the  truth,  and 
he  has  lived  there  for  many  years  and 
been  the  shepherd  of  a large  flock,  -uey 
are  not  the  people  who  have  been  de- 
scribed by  the  operators  and  their  allies 
in  this  case.  AA'hen  that  gallant  old  gen 
eral,  whom  Mr.  B ter  never  forgets  to  pat 
on  the  back,  General  Gobin,  marched  his 
troops  into  the  town  expecting  an  am- 
buscade. or  a frowning  fort,  he  must 
have  been  surprised  to  find  the  enemy  at 
church.  It  would  have  been  just  as  well 
If  his  troops  had  been  there,  too. 

From  a Natural  Standpoint. 

But  let  us  look  at  this  question  of  the 
disorder  in  the  coal  region  from  a natural 
standpoint.  Y'ou  and  I may  have  our 
theories  of  crime  and  of  criminal  respon- 
sibility, but  there  are  some  things,  I lake 
it,  that  we  can  agree  upon  that  have  no 
relation  to  the  question  of  moral  respon- 
sibility. Men  and  women  have  arranged 
themsely-es  in  a system  which  we  call 
society'.  As  much  a system  as  the  re- 
volving planets,  each  moving  in  its  orbit, 
each  escaping  the  other  because  they 
keep  their  place.  As  much  a system  as 
the  infinite  number  of  infinitely  small 
molecules  that  make  up  a piece  of  iron, 
or  a piece  of  ste?l,  or  a piece  of  wood, 
each  having  a separate  orbit,  and  the 
harmony  of  the  whole  depending  upon  the 
observance  of  the  relations  between  thess 
separate  atoms.  That  is  what  society  is 
That  is  what  it  is  broadly.  Men  and  wo- 
men rather  automatically  take  their 
places.  They-  live  their  lives,  they  tread 
their  paths,  they-  go  their  way.  regarding 
each  other's  rights,  in  their  own  orbits 
and  living  together  in  harmony  and  in 
peace.  But  if  peace  and  harmony  is  dis- 
turbed then  comes  a new  adjustment,  a 
new  relntion.  These  particles  must  form 
again  in  some  other  way.  It  is  the  same 


in  the  physical  world,  in  the  moral  world, 
in  the  spiritual  world,  the  world  of  beasts 
as  with  men.  Let  some  cataclysm  occui 
and  destroy  all  the  particles  of  matter  in 
the  physical  world,  and  they  must  re- 
adjust themselves.  First  is  disorder  and 
tumult,  but  finally-  they  readjust  them- 
selves once  more.  The  same  is  true  of 
man.  In  a war,  a pestilence,  a great 
strike,  all  these  social  relations  are 
changed  in  a moment.  The  oibits  of  the 
individual  atoms  are  changed.  It  means 
force,  it  means  violence,  it  means  a clash- 
ing of  individuals,  a clashing  that  caused 
the  orbits  to  change  and  society  is  chang- 
ed. There  can  be  no  disturbance  of  hu- 
man relations,  or  of  physical  relations, 
that  does  not  bring  this  conflict,  I do  not 
care  what  it  is.  A'ou  can  never  have  a 
great  strike  excepting  here  and  there  vio- 
lence is  done.  Y'ou  can  never  construct 
a great  building  out  of  the  ordinary,  ex- 
cepting here  and  there  some  \ iolence  is 
done.  Nothing  can  happen  to  disturb  the 
common,  ordinary-  walks  of  life  except 
these  atoms  will  clash.  So  it  was  in  the 
coal  fields.  Here  were  147,000  working 
men,  a population  perhaps  of  seven  hun- 
dred thousand  people  living  very  close  to 
the  limits  of  life.  AA’e  have  read  of  the 
wealth  of  these  men.  it  is  not  worth  talk 
ing  about.  The  Erie  company  brought  its 
land  agent  to  prove  how  much  its  em- 
ployes were  worth.  AA'hat  did  they  say? 
They  went  to  the  tax  records  and  they 
proved  that  twenty-eight  per  cent,  or 
them  were  paying  taxes  upon  property 
and  they  brought,  not  its  assessed  value, 
but  its  real  value,  the  assessed  value 
multiplied  by  two  and  in  some  instances 
two  and  a half,  which  we  will  assume  is 
correct,  and  they  figured  out  that  twenty- 
eight  per  cent,  of  their  employes  hau 
property  averaging  a thousand  dollars 
apiece  Then  we  sent  our  people  to  in- 
vestigate. They  took  every  tenth  man 
in  the  regular  order  upon  the  list,  and  it 
showed  that  one-half  of  that  property 
was  either  mortgaged,  or  judgments 
against  it,  or  not  theirs  at  all.  AA’here- 
ever  a miner  has  come  into  t-ns  court 
and  has  told  anything  of  his  possessions, 
the  evidence  has  shown  that  he  and  his 
children  have  toiled  for  years  to  get  a 
little  home  above  their  heads.  They  were 
frugal,  they  were  saving,  they  were  self- 
denying.  They-  worked  for  years  and 
scarcely-  an  instance  has  been  shown  in 
this  case  where  any  man  has  had  one, 
or  two.  or  at  the  most  three  thousand 
dollars,  but  what  it  was  the  combined 
savings  of  all  his  family  covering  years. 
This  was  the  condition.  These  people 
were  gathered  from  every  portion  of  the 
earth,  with  all  degrees  of  intelligence  and 
all  degrees  of  feeling:  and  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  man  or  the  woman  of  the 
deepest  feeling  is  the  worst  man  or  wo- 
man. The  man  yvith  cool  judgment  and 
little  feeling,  who  is  never  moved  to 
strong  loves  and  strong  hates,  may  pass 
along  through  life  in  the  beaten  path. 
But  many  of  these  people,  close  to  na- 
ture, people  of  deep  feeling,  of  other 
races  than  ours,  no  doubt  kind,  no  doubt 
generous,  no  doubt  of  warm  sympathies 
— T hay-e  seen  them  in  the  coal  regions, 
fathers  and  sons  and  brothers  and  neigh- 
bors. men  kissing  each  other  at  parting, 
which  you  rarely  see  with  men  who  can 
speak  good  English.  T knew  they  were 
not  operators;  I was  sure  of  it.  (Laugh- 
ter.) 

They  were  the  despised  Huns,  the  Goths 
and  Vandals  whom  the  operators  em- 
ployed, but  whose  natural  love  and 
whose  natural  sympathy  would  bring  men 


to  kiss  each  other  at  meeting  and  at 
parting.  And  thtse  are  the  men  who 
committed  crimes— men  of  strong  emo- 
tion; men  not  cool  and  calculating,  and 
weighing  evidence  and  human  actions 
like  a judge  upon  the  bench  or  a lawyer 
who  is  paid  to  weigh  them.  They  were 
men  who  act  upon  the  emotions  which 
God  gave  them,  whose  school  was  the 
mine  and  hard  work  and  bitter  experi- 
ence; men  who  have  not  learned  to  con- 
trol their  natural  sympathies  or  their 
natural  passions.  And  these  men  were 
thrown  out  for  five  and  a half  months  to 
fight  with  famine  for  themselves  and 
their  wives  and  their  children. 

It  is  a short-sighted  man  who  could 
doubt  what  would  be  the  result — a short- 
sighted man.  If  this  commission  were 
sitting  here  today,  and  were  informed 
that  in  a valley  a hundred  miles  in  one 
direction  and  fifty  miles  in  another  and 
peopled  by  a miscellaneous  people,  five 
hundred  thousand  souls  were  to  be  re- 
duced to  want  for  five  and  a half  long 
months,  months  of  idleness,  months  of 
excitement,  months  of  intense  social  feel- 
ing, would  you  doubt  -what  would  hap- 
pen? Not  a man  would  doubt  it.  X"ou 
would  know  that  in  spite  of  every  law 
of  man  and  God,  in  spite  of  every  instinct 
of  humanity  and  charity,  which,  after 
all.  are  planted  deep  in  the  hearts  of  men, 
which  after  all  make  for  the  preserva- 
tion and  the  uplifting  of  the  human  race 
—that  in  spite  of  these  the  feeling  of  the 
brute  would  here  and  there  arise,  and 
these  scenes  of  violence  and  crime  must 
inevitably  come. 

Mr.  Baer  knew  it.  Mr.  Olyphant  knew 
it.  Mr.  Thomas  knew’  it.  Every  one  of 
these  railroad  presidents  knew  it  wnen 
they  insolently  and  cruelly  refused  to 
meet  their  men  in  calm,  decent  confer- 
ence, and  thus  let  slip  the  dogs  of  war. 

The  responsibility,  gentlemen,  is  not 
upon  these  men  who  were  your  chattels 
and  your  servants;  these  men  who  begged 
and  plead  and  prayed  for  the  commonest 
right  that  every  human  being  should 
have  from  the  master  for  whom  lit 
works.  The  responsibility  is  for  those 
men  who  severed  their  relations  with 
their  fellow-men.  When  Mr.  Baer  and 
Mr.  Thomas  and  the  other  captains  of  in- 
dustry severed  their  relations,  there  could 
be  but  one  result,  and  there  was  one.  The 
wonder  in  this  case  is  not  where  these 
gentlemen  have  placed  it. 

A Natural  Price. 

I read  the  other  day  of  a horrible  acci- 
dent upon  the  Reading  railroad,  where 
twenty  or  thirty  people,  as  I recall  it, 
were  killed  or  at  least  injured.  I would 
not  charge  that  accident  to  Mr.  Baer  cr 
anybody  in  the  service  of  the  c impany. 
When  I consider  the  number  of  men  who 
ride  up  and  down  our  railroads  every  day, 
the  wonder  to  me  is  that  more  men  are 
not  killed  and  more  accidents  do  not  hap- 
pen. When  I consider  that  in  this  min 
ing  region  there  was  a population  of  700,- 
000  men  and  women  and  children,  to  say 
nothing  of  several  hundred  thousand 
more  dependent  upon  them — more  than  a 
million  of  people,  more  than  there  are 
in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  always  living 
close  to  the  limits  of  life— when  I con- 
sider that  these  conditions  existed  there 
for  five  and  a half  long  months  in  the 
face  of  the  most  serious  strain,  and  when 
the  passions  of  men  were  awakened,  the 
wonder  in  my  mind  is  that  there  was  not 
more  violence  instead  of  less.  And  if  it 
had  not  been  for  the  loyalty  of  these  men 
to  their  union,  for  the  judgment  and  the 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 

coolness  and  the  watchful  presence  of 
their  leaders,  could  anything  have  pre- 
vented the  destruction  of  an  enormous 
amount  of  property?  Let  us  see  what  it 
was. 

Not  a breaker  was  burned,  not  a piece 
of  property  destroyed  that  belonged  to 
these  coal  companies,  excepting  that  here 
and  there  some  windows  were  broken. 
There  was  no  organized  raid  in  any  di- 
rection and  to  accomplish  any  end.  In 
all  the  testimony  we  have  had  not  one 
instance  has  been  shown  where  any  lead- 
er of  this  organization  ever  counseled,  ad- 
vised. committed  or  tolerated  violation  of 
the  law— not  one.  Here  and  there  some 
poor  fellow,  driven  by  desperation  at  the 
sight  of  the  man  who  was  going  out  to 
take  what  he  called  “his  job,”  who  was 
going  out  for  the  purpose  of  destroying 
the  righteous  cause  for  which  these  men 
were  suffering  and  fighting— here  and 
there  some  men,  maddened  by  this  sight, 
committed  acts  of  violence  for  which  we 
are  as  sorry  as  this  commission  can  pos- 
sibly be.  But  I cannot  overlook  the  facts, 
and  I do  not  care  to  overlook  the  facts. 

They  tell  us  that  we  were  cruel.  Were 
we?  I will  not  charge  any  of  these 
wrongs  upon  the  poor,  stuttering  Pole,  or 
the  Slav  or  the  Goths,  or  the  Vandals,  or 
any  of  the  rest.  I think  it  comes  with  a 
poor  grace  from  these  men  who  have 
taken  their  labor  for  years  to  charge  that 
they  cannot  speak  English,  and  are  there- 
fore not  responsible  for  their  contracts, 
and  are  men  who  commit  crime.  I will 
not  concede  for  a moment  that  the  evi- 
dence in  this  case  or  that  what  I know 
of  my  fellow-man  shows  that  this  body  of 
men  are  worse  than  other  men:  and  I do 
not  want  to  take  the  responsibility  from 
the  Irish  or  the  Welsh  or  the  English  or 
any  other  class  of  men  who  can  speak 
the  language  that  we  speak  and  place  it 
upon  the  shoulders  of  these  poor  men — 
unlettered,  uneducated,  close  to  nature, 
but  doing  the  best  th°y  can.  A warm- 
hearted, sympathetic,  emotional,  religious 
people,  living  close  to  the  heart  of  nature 
and  feeling  her  every  pulse-beat — these 
men  are  the  peers  in  courage,  in  devotion, 
in  conscience  of  any  man  who  lives. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  may  show  that 
they  the  more  often  overstepped  the  law. 
It  may.  But  there  is  the  law  of  the  land 
and  there  is  the  moral  law.  let  us  look 
at  this  case  of  Winston,  which.  1 take  it, 
is  the  clearest  and  the  best-defined  of  any 
case  that  has  been  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  this  commission,  where  it  is 
claimed  that  the  Mine  Workers  commit- 
ted some  depredation.  The  case  of  Bed- 
deli  is  very  clear;  but  there  was  a great, 
tumultuous  ocean  of  people,  a Babel  ot 
tongues  and  of  occupations;  and  nobody 
knows  who  was  responsible,  or  whether 
anybody’  was  responsible.  Two  people 
have  been  tried  for  the  crime,  neither  ona 
a Mine  Worker,  and  both  of  them  ac- 
quitted. No  one  can  tell. 

The  Case  of  Winston. 

But  take  the  case  of  Winston.  The  evi- 
dence in  this  case  shows  that  three  Poles 
living  near  Mr.  Winston’s  house  commit- 
ted this  act.  Mr.  Winston  had  been  a 
member  of  the  union,  and  as  1 recall  it, 
an  officer  of  the  union.  He  had  gone  out 
on  the  strike.  He  had  stayed  out.  as  his 
wife  tells  us,  I believe,  until  he  had  10 
money’,  and  being  a Mine  Worker,  of 
course  that  was  not  very  long.  Then  he 
went  back  to  work.  TTe  and  his  son-in 
law  started  down  the  garden  walk,  out  ot 
the  back  door  to  go  to  work  when  their 
brethren  were  on  a strike— a strike  in  as 


2<il 


righteous  a cause,  I believe,  as  ever  man 
fought  for.  In  one  way  I would  excuse 
Mr.  Winston;  in  another  way  1 would 
not.  Under  the  laws  of  the  land  he  had 
a perfect  right  to  go  to  work,  and  no  man 
had  the  right  to  molest  him  in  any  way 
That  is  perfectly  true,  but  I believe  that 
Mr.  Mitchell's  testimony,  quoted  here 
yesterday  as  being  sc-  absurd,  is  abso 
lutely  true.  No  man  has  the  right,  the 
moral  right— whatever  his  legal  right  may- 
be—no  man  has  the  moral  right  even  to 
work  when  that  work  interferes  with  the 
social,  the  moral,  the  living  relations  ot 
his  fellow-man.  and  I do  not  speak  the 
words  of  dreamers.  f can  speak  the 
words  of  law.  We  have  for  years  exclud 
ed  the  Chinese  from  this  country  because 
we  believe  that  to  bring  them  here,  at 
the  wages  for  which  they  work,  will  re- 
duce our  American  workingmen  (who  n 
we  profess  to  love  so  fondly),  to  the 
standard  of  the  Chinese,  and  we  say  “No, 
you  can  not  work.”  We  have  regulatel 
the  hours  of  children,  the  hours  of  wo- 
men, the  pay  of  men — even  the  hours  at 
which  man  may’  toil  in  certain  callings, 
and  even  generally  the  hours,  as  was 
done  in  Utah,  and  held  to  be  valid  by  our 
Supreme  court,  as  I understand,  although 
I have  never  read  the  opinion. 

The  Right  to  Work. 

We  have  by’  law  denied  any  such  absurd 
principle  as  that  there  are  no  times  and 
occasions  when  a man  has  not  the  right 
to  work.  For  instance:  Supposing  a body 
of  men  would  be  willing  to  work  eigh- 
teen or  twenty  hours  and  live  upon  rats, 
or  any  other  cheap  diet  Can  any  man 
tell  me  they’  httve  the  moral  right  to  do 
it,  if  by  that  means,  as  most  inevitably 
would  result,  they  are  lowering  the 
standard  of  life  of  the  Vmeriean  people, 
which  is  the  most  jealous  thing  for  us  to 
preserve.  Man  is  an  individual  animal 
and  he  is  a social  animal.  He  must  work 
in  such  a way  as  to  promote  the  welfare 
of  his  race,  and  I take  it  that  no  mint 
that  feels  justice  can  look  in  any  way 
except  with  contempt  at  the  person  who 
will  voluntarily,  of  his  own  free  will, 
see  fit  to  undermine  and  underbid  his  fel- 
low-man and  lower  his  condition  in  lire. 
Mr.  Winston  was  doing  this.  Mind,  1 am 
not  charging  this  up  against  him.  Mr. 
Winston  had  a wife  and  children  and  un- 
doubtedly to  him  the  pressure  seemed 
great  for  he  himself  had  been  a striker. 
He  had  recognized  the  justice  of  this  holy 
cause.  He  had  called  upon  his  brethren 
to  lay  down  their  tools  with  him.  ami  he 
had  gone  out  to  meet  this  very  same  con- 
dition in  which  he  found  himself  when  he 
walked  down  the  walk.  1 piesume  th? 
necessities  were  great:  and  yet.  he  did 
not  need  to  starve.  Men  could  live  there 
even,  for  of  ten  million  men.  all  the  hon- 
est toilers  of  America  were  turning  in 
their  money  to  support  these  miners. 
Every  man  whose  heart  heat  for  human- 
ity was  giving  his  mite  to  keep  ttrnm 
alive  in  this  terrihle  contest.  These 
Poles — 

Commissioner  Spalding:  Were  they  not 
Lithuanians,  Mr.  Darrow? 

Mr.  Darrow:  I do  not  know 

Mr.  Murphy:  They  were  Russians  - 
Russian  Poles. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  Were  they  not 

Lithuanians,  and  not  Poles?  Lithuanians 
are  all  Russian,  and  the  Poles  are  r.ot, 
by’  any  means. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Lithuanians. 

Commissioner  Spalding:  It  seems  to  me 

that  was  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Darrow;  I am  not  quit®  certain.  ? 


262 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


know  they  were  of  one  of  those  northern 
peoples.  They  were  workers.  They  were 
out  in  this  struggle.  They  saw  Winston 
and  his  son-in-law  going  to  work  against 
them,  against  their  wives  and  their  chil- 
dren, against  their  country,  against  their 
instincts  of  justice  and  of  fair  play  and 
of  righteousness,  and  they  went  out  In 
the  morning  and  hit  them  over  the  head 
with  a club.  No,  I have  no.  idea  in  the 
world  that  they  ever  intended  to  kill 
them.  They  did  not  kill  the  other  man, 
and  yet  he  was  there  helpless  before 
them.  They  did  not  kill  him.  They  went 
away,  and  these  men  were  both  alive,  ap- 
parently simply  hurt.  They  did  intend, 
of  course,  to  beat  him.  They  did  intend 
to  drive  him  from  his  work.  They  did  in- 
tend to  violate  the  law,  and  this  court 
may  do  what  this  court  thinks  is  right 
and  just  as  to  that  matter.  But  I can 
not  look  at  the  condition  of  those  men 
without  considering  their  environment, 
without  considering  their  long  and  bitter 
struggle,  without  remembering  that  they 
did  not  do  this  because  they  werecriminals, 
but  they  did  this  from  a mistaken,  a sore- 
ly mistaken  sense  of  what  they  thought 
was  the  right.  We  do  not  excuse  it  or 
condone  it.  We  would  he  glad  to  wel- 
come any  conditions  which  would  make 
these  things  impossible;  but  I want  to 
say  to  this  commission  that  you  can  not 
preach  a sermon  loud  enough  or  long 
enough,  or  use  the  English  language  vig- 
orously enough  to  abate  one  jot  or  tittle 
of  the  same  thing  if  the  same  conditions 
shall  arise  again.  There  is  but  one  way 
to  prevent  this,  and  that  one  way  is  to 
teach  our  captains  of  industry  that  they 
must  respect  their  fellow-men.  If  these 
gentlemen  had  met  John  Mitchell  and 
John  Mitchell's  organization,  Winston 
would  have  been  alive  today,  and  so 
would  Sharp,  whom  they  killed,  and  so 
would  the  three  or  four  more  victims 
whom  they  killed,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
three  more  victims  whose  bodies  have 
been  directly  or  indirectly  traced  to  the 
doors  of  the  Mine  Workers.  You  can  not 
cure  it  in  any  other  way  It  is  idle  and 
futile  and  useless  to  talk  of  curing  it  in 
any  other  way.  But  there  was  force  and 
violence  present  in  this  case  for  which 
men  are  more  nearly  responsible  than 
this.  Let  us  see  about  that,  for  after  all 
it  is  a pleasanter  subject  to  me,  and  1 
think  it  has  more  direct  bearing  upon  this 
case.  All  these  matters  were  conse- 
quences. They  were  results.  Here  and 
there  dynamite  was  used,  never  once  to 
destroy  life,  always  to  frighten.  Always 
deplorable.  We  deplore  it.  Counsel  for 
the  non-union  men  say  that  the  strikers 
abuse  women.  Where?  Where?  It  must 
be  said  for  this  body  of  men  147,000  strong 
that  in  this  long  warfare  there  is  no  one 
word  in  this  case  showing  where  they 
have  raised  their  hands  against  a woman 
or  against  a child;  not  once.  They  called 
them  scabs  at  times,  that  is  true;  but 
they  were  always  safe— as  safe  as  if  one 
hundred  policemen  stood  on  guard.  Tnese 
men  were  not  criminals.  These  men  were 
men  engaged  in  a great  contest,  in  which 
the  feelings  and  passions  and  emotions  of 
men  were  stirred,  and  when  the  contest 
is  over  I will  guarantee  that  you  will  find 
that  each  of  these  poor  men  is  as  decent, 
as  honest,  as  humane,  as  generous,  as 
kind,  as  loving,  as  any  other  man  who 
ever  lived.  When  the  feeling  and  the 
cause  Is  gone,  then  the  normal  man  is 
the  man  again;  whether  operator  or 
workman,  the  rule  holds  good  and  must 
hold  good. 


After  Markle  Again. 

But  there  were  some  of  Lhese  opera- 
tors who  were  less  kind.  How  about  Mr. 
Markle?  There  are  all  sorts  of  force.  1 
insist  that  Mr.  Baer’s  definition  will  never 
do.  I have  no  doubt  but  what  every  gen- 
tleman of  this  commission  will  at  once 
disagree  with  Mr.  Baer  in  =aying  that  no 
man  has  any  duties  except  his  legal  du- 
ties. He  says  if  we  were  to  consider 
moral  rights  where  would  we  come  out? 
Where  would  we  end?  One  man  thinks 
one  thing  is  a moral  right  and  another 
man  thinks  another  thing  is  a moral 
right.  Well,  I have  known  lawyers  to 
disagree  as  to  legal  rights  quits  as  much 
as  moralists  disagree  as  to  moral  rights, 
and  perhaps  more.  The  whole  training 
and  education  of  the  youth  and  the  man 
is  to  teach  them  the  difference  between 
right  and  wrong  in  human  relations,  to 
teach  him  those  relations  which  make  foi 
the  peace  and  the  good  order  and  well 
being  of  society,  and  those  which  are 
anti-socialistic  and  tend  to  the  disorder 
of  society.  There  are  moral  rights  and 
there  are  legal  lights.  After  the  strike 
was  over  Mr.  Mantle  felt  so  outraged  and 
so  incensed  that  his  men  dare  to  strike, 
that  he  used  force  more  inexcusable  and 
more  to  be  condemned  than  any  violence 
of  any  ignorant  man  that  has  been 
proven  in  this  case.  The  war  you  re- 
member was  over.  The  president  had 
settled  it  and  the  men  had  gone  back  to 
work.  Then  he  evicted  thirteen  men,  not 
one  of  whom  had  committed  a crime  so 
far  as  this  record  goes.  One  man,  who 
had  been  more  than  thirty  years  in  his 
and  his  father's  employ,  he  picked  out 
and  he  not  only  said  he  would  not  employ 
these  thirteen  men  again,  but  he  drove 
them  from  their  homes.  How  did  he  do 
it?  Let  us  see.  The  evidence  as  it  went 
into  this  record  was  somewhat  disjointed. 
It  was  put  in  in  three  different  bundles 
of  papers.  One  bundle  consisted  of  the 
correspondence  between  the  recorder  of 
this  body  and  Mr.  Markle.  Another  bun- 
dle consisted  of  the  correspondence  be- 
tween Mr.  Markle  and  his  men.  Another 
bundle  contained  the  proceedings  in  th'ose 
court  cases.  But  when  you  take  them  to 
pieces  and  put  them  together,  what  does 
the  record  show?  All  of  this  took  place 
after  this  commission  was  appointed,  di- 
rectly in  the  face  and  the  eves  of  this 
commission  appointed  to  settle  this  con- 
troversy, and  while  this  man  was  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  commission,  cor- 
responding with  it  at  least.  Had  this 
commission  been  a court,  with  the  pow- 
ers of  a court,  every  bit  of  this  would 
have  been  in  utter  contempt  of  court  and 
worthy  of  a sentence  in  a common  jail. 

MARKLE'S  “SUBMISSION.” 

What  is  the  first  step  in  this  proceed- 
ing? We  find  Mr.  Wright  telegraphing  to 
Mr.  Markle  that  this  commission  had 
been  appointed  and  asking  him  whether 
he  wanted  to  come  in.  Upon  that  day 
we  find  him  sending  word  to  his  men  to 
bring  in  their  brass  checks,  which  meant 
they  were  to  be  discharged  and  hired 
over  again  if  he  wanted  to  hire  them 
over  again.  Then  we  find  him  answering 
this  communication  from  Mr.  Wright  and 
saying  that  ho  did  not  know  whether  ho 
would  come  in  or  not.  that  he  was  hav- 
ing some  difficulty  with  his  men.  Then 
we  find  that  his  men  went  there  in  a 
body  and,  hearing  the  rumors  of  this  dis 
crimination,  told  Mr.  Markle  that  they 
would  not  come  back  unless  they  could 
come  together.  Then  we  find  Mr.  Markle 
giving  notice  that  he  would  not  hire  them 


all  and  then  sending  a communication  to 
Mr.  Wright  saying  that  he  was  having 
some  difficulty  with  his  men,  some  of 
them  who  had  committed  criminal  of- 
fenses would  not  be  taken  back  and  he 
could  not  tell  yet  whether  he  would  enter 
into  negotiations  with  this  commission  or 
not.  Then  he  goes  to  his  lawyer  and  he 
takes  his  cutthroat  lease,  a lease  at  the 
will  and  the  pleasure  of  John  Markle  at 
15 y2  cents  a day,  containing  a clause  al- 
lowing a confession  of  judgment,  and  he 
hands  it  to  his  lawyer  who  signs  his  name 
to  it,  as  James  Gallagher's  lawyer,  ana 
he  confesses  judgment  to  oust  him  from 
his  home.  Then  when  the  last  one  ot 
these  men  is  ousted,  he  sends  word  to 
this  commission  that  he  is  ready  to  cornu 
into  court.  That  is  John  Markle.  Ho-.v 
did  he  do  it?  Can  any  one  imagine  a 
more  cruel  and  heartless  eviction  than 
this?  Why,  if  this  had  happened  in  Ire- 
land, we  would  have  had  speeches  in  ev- 
ery town  of  the  L’nited  States.  Even  In- 
dependence Hall  in  Philadelphia  would 
have  been  opened  to  condemn  it,  if  it  had 
not  been  so  near  home.  I do  not  suppose 
there  is  any  place  but  Chicago  where  we 
could  have  got  up  a meeting  to  protest 
as  long  as  it  happened  here,  and  we 
would  not  have  done  it  if  it  happened  in 
Chicago.  But  if  it  had  been  in  Ireland, 
then  the  case  would  have  been  different. 
How  did  he  do  it?  Mind  you,  there  was 
not  one  of  these  men  who  had  ever  com- 
mitted a crime.  I will  guarantee  that  it 
Mr.  Gallagher’s  brain  could  be  taken  out 
and  weighed  it  would  be  the  equal  of  Mr. 
Markle's,  and  if  you  weighed  his  con- 
science in  some  way  you  would  find  it 
was  heavier.  (Laughter.) 

Commissioner  Spalding:  Lighter,  you 
mean.  (Renewed  laughter.) 

Mr.  Darrow:  There  is  more  of  it.  1 
suppose  his  lungs  are  blacker,  as  has 
been  demonstrated  in  this  case  happens 
to  all  miners,  but  that  is  another  ques- 
tion. Mr.  Gallagher  says  that  he  had 
served  there  for  thirty-one  years  and  he 
defies  them  to  show'  one  black  mark 
against  him.  If  that  is  so,  he  has  done 
better  than  I could  have  done.  Possibly 
it  would  trouble  any  of  us  to  do  as  well. 
Nothing  but  a very  faithful  and  very 
obedient  man  could  have  that  record. 
But.  anyhow,  he  was  not  discharged  be- 
cause he  had  committed  a crime,  neithe; 
were  any  of  the  rest.  What  was  he  dis- 
charged for?  Why,  his  son  had  been  a 
member  of  the  relief  committee,  that  ts 
the  nearest  he  could  get  to  it.  He  had 
gone  around  feeding  women  and  children 
against  Markle’s  will  and  pleasure,  for 
under  his  will  and  pleasure,  which  were 
the  terms  of  his  lease,  these  men.  women 
and  children  should  die.  or  go  back  into 
the  mines.  The  others  were  officers  of 
the  union,  everyone  of  them  officers  and 
leading  members.  He  got  his  attorney  to 
confess  judgment  and  they  waited,  as 
men  always  do  wait  when  they  are  be- 
ing driven  from  their  homes,  not  believ- 
ing that  John  Markle  could  do  it.  or  that 
any  human  being  could  do  it.  They  wait- 
ed and  John  Markle’s  lawyer  goes  over  to 
Wilkes-Barre  at  twelve  o'clock  at  night 
and  gets  the  papers  and  brings  the  sher- 
iff, or  directs  the  sheriff  to  be  there  early 
the  next  morning.  He  comes  there  in  the 
morning  at  eight  o'clock  ana  comes  to 
the  door  of  these  men.  and  he  goes  to 
Henry  Coll,  among  the  rest,  whose  wife 
w\as  lying  sick  upon  her  bed  and  whose 
blind  mother-in-law.  a hundred  years  old. 
w’as  lying  sick  upon  her  bed.  and  Henry 
Coll  begged  of  the  sheriff  to  give  him  two 
hours'  time,  not  two  days,  but  two  hours, 


to  find  a place  where  he  could  lay  his 
sick  wife  and  his  blind  mother-in-law. 
The  sheriff  said,  I will  see  what  I can  do, 
and  he  went  down  to  John  Markle's  of- 
fice. There  he  found  John  Markle  and 
John  Markle's  lawyer  in  the  office  wait- 
ing for  this  eviction  and,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  his  general  superintendent 
of  eviction,  the  sheriff  asked  John  Markle, 
and  John  Markle  turned  to  his  lawyer— 
a lawyer  is  a bad  man  in  which  to  place 
the  keeping  of  your  conscience,  unless 
he  is  a conscientious  lawyer,  (.daughter.) 
It  is  about  all  he  can  do  to  advise  about 
the  law — but  he  turned  to  his  lawyer  and 
undoubtedly  his  lawyer  knew  what  kina 
of  advice  John  Markle  wanted.  He  had 
doubtless  worked  for  him  before  and  he 
said  no,  you  had  better  not  do  it,  they 
might  get  out  an  injunction  against  you. 
An  injunction!  As  if  any  court  could 
ever  issue  an  injunction  in  a case  like 
that.  An  injunction  to  keep  a poor  devil 
in  a house  worth  four  dollars  a month 
for  a few  days  more.  Why,  if  an  injunc- 
tion had  been  granted  in  chat  case  John 
Markle’s  mind  would  have  filled  with 
wrater,  and  Mr.  Baer  would  have  said 
that  the  fabric  of  civilization  would  tum- 
ble down  around  our  heads.  But  my 
learned  friend,  Mr.  Dickson,  takes  a dif- 
ferent view  of  the  case.  We  cannot 
quite  harmonize  John  Markle  and  Mr. 
Dickson.  John  Markle’s  excuse  was  that 
he  was  afraid  of  an  injunction;  Mr.  Dick- 
son says  he  believes  those  men  put  up  a 
job  to  get  turned  out.  Mr.  Dickson  and 
his  client  had  better  caucus  and  agree 
upon  some  theory  in  this  case.  Be  that 
as  it  may,  Henry  Coll  asked  for  two 
hours,  and,  according  to  one  story,  he 
said  not  ten  minutes;  according  to  an- 
other story,  he  said  no.  Probably  the 
latter  is  more  correct  because  it  is  short- 
er. (Laughter.)  He  sent  his  superin- 
tendent while  he  stayed  in  the  office,  his 
superintendent  of  evictions,  Williams,  and 
they  got  some  wagons,  because  there 
were  some  of  those  fellows  who  were  so 
far  away  from  the  highway,  the  only 
place  where  these  poor  people  had  to  lay 
their  heads  and  they  had  to  load  the 
goods  into  the  wagons,  and  in  one  place 
they  found  a barrel  of  sour  kraut  which 
showed  they  were  not  quite  starved  out, 
and  in  another  place  I think  thirty  bush- 
els of  potatoes,  and  that  is  all  the  com- 
missary  that  was  left  so  far  as  this  rec- 
ord goes.  And  they  dumped  them  out  in 
the  middle  of  the  street;  and  the  super- 
intendent was  there,  and  John  Markle  in 
his  office,  closeted  with  an  attorney. 

Mr.  McCarthy:  No,  the  attorney  was 

there  too. 

Mr.  Darrow:  ThDy  took  out  their  stoves 
and  their  chair  and  their  beds  and  theii 
sour  kraut  and  they  left  them  in  the 
street.  And  they  got  through  with  this 
glorious  job  at  6 o’clock,  at  night  of  a 
November  day,  when  the  rain  was  com- 
ing down  and  it  was  dark,  and  they  weru 
there  upon  the  street — men,  women,  chil- 
dren; the  well,  the  sick,  the  blind,  the  in- 
firm, the  helpless,  two  miles  from  anj- 
shelter.  And  then  the  superintendent 
turned  his  back  upon  them  and  drove 
away  and  went  home  and  got  his  supper 
and  reported  to  John  Markle! 

Gentlemen  of  the  commission,  you  may 
roll  together  all  the  cruelty  and  all  the 
violence  and  all  the  misery  that  all  of 
these  irresponsible  Goths  and  Vandals 
have  committed  in  the  anthracite  region, 
you  may  pack  them  in  one,  and  they  can- 
not equal  the  fiendish  cruelty  of  John 
Markle  when  he  turned  these  helpless 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


people  into  the  street  simply  to  satisfy 
his  hellish  hate.  (Applause.) 

There  are  all  kinds  of  violence  in  this 
world.  It  is  cruel.  I would  like  to  live 
in  a world  where  there  was  none  of  this 
cruelty  and  this  inhumanity  of  man  to 
man.  I have  never  found  that  it  was  all 
upon  one  side  or  by  one  class.  It  flows 
from  the  feelings  of  man;  and  when 
judges  condemn  it  they  must  condemn 
that  feeling  wherever  it  is,  and  however 
it  manifests  itself,  or  whether  it  mani- 
fests itself  at  all;  because  it  is  the  feeling 
that  Is  bad,  and  not  the  man  that  is  bad. 

I do  not  propose  to  judge  John  Markle. 
Very  likely  he  may  have  some  religion  or 
some  philosophy  that  justifies  his  cruelty. 
But  his  acts  are  bad,  inexcusably  bad; 
more  inexcusably  bad  than  the  casual, 
uncertain  violent  acts  of  any  of  the  weak 
and  poor  people  who  have  been  charged 
here  with  crime. 

Concerning  the  Soldiers. 

But  let  us  see  whether  there  was  any 
other  violence.  They  sent  soldiers  there; 
and  I suppose  I must  speak  very  gently 
about  this  question  in  view  of  my  good 
friend  General  Wilson. 

Commissioner  Wilson:  Do  not  worry 
about  him;  he  can  take  care  of  himself, 
Mr.  Darrow.  (Laughter.) 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  what  I am  wor- 
rying about.  They  sent  soldiers  there, 
and  they  sent  policemen  there.  Now,  let 
me  look  at  it. 

I take  it  that  all  of  us  will  agree  that 
soldiers  are  not  all  angels,  and  even  po- 
licemen are  not  all  angels.  They  are  a 
good  deal  like  miners  and  mine  owners 
and  lawyers — and  the  rest  of  us;  not  the 
lawyers.  They  appointed  one  Gobin  chiel 
commander  in  this  great  war.  Of  course 
he  imagined  chat  he  was  Napoleon 
(laughter),  issuing  orders  upon  his  field 
against  the  allied  armies  of  Europe;  a 
considerably  bigger  man  than  Grant  in 
the  Wilderness  or  Sherman  on  his  march 
to  the  sea.  He  got  his  soldiers  up  there, 
and  he  took  up  his  headquarters  in  the 
hotel  at  Shenandoah,  in  a rocking  chair, 
I believe.  (Laughter.)  Then  he  com- 
menced operations,  playing  at  war. 

Now,  you  know,  when  we  civilians  come 
to  be  soldiers  we  make  a sorry  plight 
of  it. 

Commissioner  Wilson:  He  said  he  was 
educated  as  a lawyer,  Mr.  Darrow. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Yes,  he  was  a lawyer- 
just  a common  lawyer.  He  ought  to  have 
stuck  to  his  briefs.  (Laughter.)  But  he 
went  up  there  into  the  coal  region.  I do 
not  know  whether  he  got  -his  military 
terms  on  the  road,  or  whether  he  got  a 
book  of  instructions  when  he  was  made 
chief  of  the  Home  Guards.  I do  not 
know  where  they  came  from.  But  as 
soon  as  he  got  up  there  he  forgot  that 
he  was  a lawyer,  and  he  became  a sol- 
dier. 

The  first  order  that  he  issued  was  a 
general  congratulatory  order  to  all  his 
men,  congratulating  them  that  they  were 
alive  and  in  the  enemy's  country  and 
there  with  him.  (Laughter.)  The  first 
Important  report  he  got  was  this  one. 
You  will  observe  the  military  terms: 

“On  the  morning  of  tho  3rd  of  August 
I received  from  Colonel  Hoffman,  com- 
manding the  Eighth  regiment,  this  com- 
munication : 

‘Headquarters  Eighth  Regiment.  Infan- 
try, Third  Brigade,  National  Guard. 

Pennsylvania.’  ” 

That  does  not  tell  exactly  where  it  was 
hut  I presume  military  gentlemen  would 
know.  (Laughter.)  If  we  had  written  i; 


263 


we  would  have  said  “Shenandoah  Cor- 
ners,” or  something  like  that;  but  he 
did  not. 

“I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  at 
10.45  last  night  No.  13  sentinel,  in  the  regi- 
mental guard  of  my  command,  was 
knocked  down  by  a stone,  thrown  from 
the  laurels.  The  sentinel  fired  several 
shots,  and  at  10.50  the  entire  regiment  was 
awakened  and  In  line  and  ready  for  ac- 
tion.” (Great  laugnter.) 

I would  not  like  to  be  disturbed  so  soon 
after  going  to  bed. 

"I  sent  Company  E down  the  road  to 
the  outpost,  and  Company  B through  the 
bushes  to  the  same  point.”  (Laughter.) 

These  were  daring  fellows.  (Laughter.) 

“The  outpoost  captured  a foreigner 
(laughter),  whom  I have  confined  in  my 
guard  tent.  Shortly  after  this  No.  14,  at 
the  stable,  was  attacked  with  stones.  At 
3.15  a.  m.  No.  14  was  again  attacked,  and 
as  the  guard  was  sent  there  Nos.  12  and 
13  were  again  attacked  with  stones.  The 
regiment  was  again,  aroused  with  the 
call  ‘To  Arms,’  and  after  firing  In  about 
five  minutes  was  held  until  3.30,  and  then 
sent  to  quarters.” 

The  Chairman:  Is  it  not  “after  form- 
ing?” 

Mr.  Darrow:  Forming?  Perhaps  it  Is. 
It  says  “firing,”  but  I rather  think  it  is 
“forming.”  It  says  “firing”  up  above 
there.  (Laughter.)  If  those  soldiers 
would  shoot  in  the  dark  they  might  hit 
somebody.  But.  anyhow,  they  put  them 
all  to  bed  again  at  3.30  in  the  morning. 

“I  would  respectfully  recommend  that 
you  visit  my  camp  and  examine  the  pris- 
oner confined.  He  claims  to  be  innocent. 
Perhaps  the  town  constabulary  might  be 
able  to  identify  him  and  testify  as  to  his 
character.  Very  respectfully, 

“Theodore  F.  Hoffman, 
“Colonel  Eighth  Infantry.” 

Now,  of  course,  their  sleep  must  have 
been  greatly  broken  that  night.  No  doubt 
they  were  cross  and  peevish,  and  that 
will  account  for  much  that  happened. 
But,  now,  here  is  General  Gobin’s  report. 
He  went  over  and  visited  him.  I am  not 
much  familiar  with  military  terms,  but 
I presume  this  is  a good  military  report 
— not. 

“Respectfully  forwarded  to  the  adju- 
tant general  for  his  information.  I have 
examined  the  man  arrested,  and  find  him 
a stocky  son  of  a Lithuanian"— whatever 
that  might  be.  It  is  interesting,  anyway. 
(Laughter.)  “The  only  evidence  we  have 
of  his  participation  in  the  affair  is  that 
he  was  running  away  from  the  laurels 
surrounding  the  camp,  and  ran  into  one 
of  the  outposts."  (Laughter.)  1 presume 
he  thought  it  was  a hitching  post. 
(Laughter.)  “He  is  a prolific  liar.  Con- 
tradicting himself  quite  frequently,  and 
admits  that  he  and  three  others  were 
there  in  the  evening,  but  denies  partici- 
pating in  the  stoning.  The  ch'ef  of  police 
does  not  know  him.  He  had  on  a Mine 
Workers’  badge,  and  reasonably  well 
dressed.  I have  issued  ball  cartridges  to 
the  guard,  twenty  rounds,  and  have 
doubled  them  in  number,  and  propose  to 
take  care  of  any  further  attacks  of  this 
kind.”  (Great  laughter.; 

Now.  there  is  the  man  to  whom  I am 
glad  to  add  my  tribute  and  help  pass  him 
down  to  history  as  the  greatest  general 
of  modern  times.  (Laughter.)  I won't 
go  back  to  Caesar  and  Hannibal,  but  1 
will  include  Napoleon  and  Wellington  and 
d'-art  end  Sherman  and — Sancho  Panza. 
Thnt  is  General  Gobin! 


264 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Poking  Pun  at  Gobin. 

But  that  is  not  all  of  General  Gobin.  1 
wish  it  were. 

Mr.  Baer  and  my  friend  John  Lenahan 
say  he  is  a valiant  soldier.  He  does  not 
hesitate  to  break  the  rest  of  his  camp  at 
night  when  duty  calls.  But  here  is  an- 
other report  that  is  more  interesting 
still,  which  will  throw  a sidelight  upon 
these  gentlemen  who  are  playing  at  war. 
You  remember  the  old  fable  of  the  ox 
that  did  not  wish  to  substitute  botchers 
for  butchers,  because  the  butchers  knew 
their  business  and  the  botchers  did  not. 
It  is  good  in  the  law,  it  is  good  in  the 
mine,  and  it  is  good  as  a soldier.  A sol- 
dier is  trained  to  his  duty,  and  he  knows 
when  to  shoot  and  when  not  to  shoot. 
But  place  a man  of  this  stripe  in  a posi- 
tion where  he  has  the  lives  of  his  fellow- 
men  in  his  hands,  and  clothe  him  with  a 
little  brief  authority,  and  place  the  epaul- 
ets upon  his  shoulders  and  the  uniform 
upon  his  back,  and  there  is  no  human 
being  who  knows  what  he  will  do.  I do 
not  suppose  he  knows  himself.  Mr.  Baer 
had  told  him  he  was  a great  man,  and 
he  believed  it. 

On  August  13th  he  got  another  report. 
This  was  not  written  by  the  great  Gen- 
eral Gobin.  This  was  written  by  one  of 
General  Gobin’s  colonels  and  it  reads  as 
follows:-  “I  have  the  honor  to  report  that 
at  10  p.  m.  yesterday  a man  was  seen 
skulking  near  the  stable  of  this  com- 
mand. tie  was  challenged,  and  upon  re- 
fusal to  halt  was  fired  upon  by  the  stable 
guard,  without  result  as  I regret  to  say.’' 
(Laughter.)  That  is  not  amusing.  These 
were  the  civilian  soldiers  whom  the  cap- 
tains of  industry  desired  to  come  and 
help  control  or  kill  their  men.  Plere  is  a 
state,  not  of  war,  but  of  peace — no 
crowds,  nothing;  10  o’clock  at  night,  and 
a sentinel  placed  somewhere  around  the 
camp,  probably  marching  up  and  down 
to  say  that  all  is  well,  and  looking  at  the 
moon.  (Laughter.)  There  was  no  dan- 
ger, no  army.  Martial  lav/  was  not  de- 
clared. They  were  there  to  help,  if  help 
were  needed,  to  disperse  a mob  if  it  were 
necessary  to  do  so,  and  they  were  as  much 
under  the  power  and  dominion  of  the 
law  as  the  humblest  citizen  in  the  land. 
They  had  no  more  right  to  transgress  the 
laws  of  Pennsylvania  or  the  laws  of  God, 
than  the  humblest  mine  worker  who  goes 
down  in  the  earth  to  dig  coal.  And  yet 
this  man,  a guard — we  do  not  know  who 
he  was,  excepting  that  he  wa.s  No.  13— 
clothed  with  a gun  and  a little  brief  au- 
thority, saw  a man  skulking.  When  did 
skulking  become  a capital  offense?  What 
does  skulking  mean?  And  he  said  “Halt!” 
And  the  man  ran  away,  and  he  shot  at 
him  and  did  not  kill  him,  and  then  this 
commander  sends  word  back  to  his  officer 
that  he  regretted  that  he  had  not  shed 
human  blood.  He  had  no  more  excuse  to 
kill  that  man  than  a midnight  assassin 
who  meets  you  on  the  street— no  moie, 
under  the  laws  of  either  God  or  of  man, 
and  yet  he  sends  back  this  report  to  his 
commander  saying  he  regietted  that  he 
had  not  killed  this  man.  And  what  does 
the  commander  say?  Does  he  say  dis- 
charge him?  Does  he  put  him  in  the 
guard  house?  Oh,  no.  I asked  him  if 
he  approved  that  act,  and  he  stuttered 
and  stammered  and  dodged  and  quibbled 
between  his  reluctance  to  admit  that  he 
approved  It  and  his  reluctance  to  deny  it 
and  say  that  he  left  it  unpunished,  but  on 
the  whole  he  did  approve  it,  that  this 
rnan  had  not  killed  somebody,  who  had 
been  guilty  of  the  horrible  crime  of  skulk- 
ing, in  a land  where  there  were  no  bel- 


ligerents, where  these  men  were  as  much 
under  the  law  as  the  common  policeman 
walking  on  his  beat,  and  not  less.  Then 
General  Gobin,  not  content  with  that,  is- 
sues this  ojder  on  the  peaceful,  or  the 
riotous  citizens  rf  Shenandoah.  I do  not 
care  which.  He  issues  this  order: 

The  “Shoot  to  Kill”  Order. 

“Headquarters  Third  Brigade,  N.  G.  P.“ 
— what  that  stands  for  I am  not  suie 
(Laughter).  If  he  had  left  the  “P”  ill 
so  that  it  would  have  been  “N.  G.”  I 
could  have  interpreted  it.  (Laughter). 
“August  29,  1902.  General  Order  No.  3. 
It  is  very  evident  from  the  recent  con- 
duct of  a riotous  element  in  this  section 
that  the  conservative  attitude  with  which 
the  troops  have  borne  insult  has  been 
misunderstood,  and  has  encouraged  this 
element  to  repeated  assaults  upon  the 
men  in  the  performance  of  their  mili- 
tary duties.  This  can  no  longer  con- 
tinue, and  I have  personally  informed  the 
chief  burgess  of  Lansford  and  Tamaqua 
and  directed  that  information  be  fur- 
nished the  authorities  of  Summit  Hill  and 
Coaldale  that  the  troops  will  no  longer 
submit  to  insult  or  violence  from  any 
one.  You  are  therefore  directed  to  arrest 
any  person  using  insulting  language,  epi- 
thets or  violence  toward  the  troops  while 
in  the  performance  of  their  duties.  Have 
such  parties  arrested  and  taken  to  your 
guard-house  for  future  disposition.  In 
moving  troops  place  reliable,  competent 
and  skillful  marksmen  on  the  flanks  of 
your  command  and  among  your  file-clos- 
ers with  loaded  guns,  and  instruct  them 
that  in  case  of  an  attack  upon  the  col- 
umn by  stones  or  other  missiles,  where 
the  attacking  party  cannot  be  reached 
a man  thus  selected  shall  carefully  note 
the  man  attacking  the  column,  and,  be- 
ing certain  of  his  man,  fire  upon  him 
without  any  further  order.” 

That  was  the  historical  “shoot-to-kill” 
order.  Now,  then,  I am  willing  to  waive 
the  strict  requirements  of  the  law,  so  far 
as  the  soldier  is  concerned,  although  un- 
der our  government  the  balance  must  be 
strictly  maintained  between  the  civil  and 
the  military,  each  supreme  within  its 
jurisdiction.  Sometimes  the  military  is 
there  to  aid  the  civil  authorities  and 
sometimes,  under  proper  legal  forms,  the 
civil  government  is  abandoned  for  the 
time  and  the  military  government  is  su- 
preme. But  this  is  a civil  government, 
and  I take  it  that  every  one  familiar 
with  the  law  understands  that  until  this 
action  is  taken,  until  military  law  is  de- 
clared, the  civil  government  is  supreme, 
and  no  officer  or  no  soldier  has  a right  to 
act  excepting  under  the  provisions  of 
the  constitution  and  the  law. 

What  did  General  Gobin  do?  He  said 
in  his  interview,  and  he  admitted  on  the 
stand  that  this  characterization  as  to 
shooting  those  who  threw  stones  was 
meant  to  apply  to  hoys,  although  he 
would  not  place  the  limit  of  the  are 
below  fifteen;  but  it  was  meant  to  apply 
to  boys.  He  instructs  his  men  that  they 
shall  place  the  sharpest  shooters  on  the 
flanks  of  their  moving  column,  and  when 
they  move  through  the  streets,  if  any  one 
is  stoned,  and  they  cannot  catch  the 
person  who  throws  the  stone,  they  may 
use  their  own  judgment  and  shoot,  and 
shoot  to  kill — and  this  in  the  state  rf 
Pennsylvania!  No  wonder  that  this  gen- 
tleman has  earned,  deserves  and  receives 
the  flattering  praise  of  Mr.  Baer.  He 
Is  entitled  to  it,  and  may  he  keep  it. 
He  will  need  it  sometime. 


Coal  and  Iron  Police. 

And  who  were  the  coal  and  iron  police 
who  were  sent  up  there  to  preserve  or- 
der? We  were  told  in  the  beginning  of 
this  case  that  in  every  instance  they 
were  picked  men,  men  tried  and  true, 
citizens  of  the  country.  I have  no  doubt 
that  in  some  instances  they  were — not  the 
slightest.  But  we  brought  here  ten  or 
twelve  of  them — at  least  ten — some  who 
had  been  convicted  of  crimes,  some  who 
were  notorious  lawbreakers  and  thugs, 
all  of  whom  were  utterly  irresponsib’e 
and  evidently  conscienceless;  and  these 
men  were  armed  with  Winchesters  and 
sent  into  this  territory  to  stand  guard 
over  their  fellowmen.  We  were  told  by 
one  of  these  men  that  when  he  went 
there  two  carloads  went  with  him;  that 
they  gathered  them  from  Pittsburg,  from 
Philadelphia,  from  Chicago,  from  New 
York,  from  every  portion  of  the  United 
States — men  armed  with  these  instru- 
ments of  death,  to  shoot  down  mine 
workers  if  need  be,  at  the  beck  and  call 
of  these  operators  who,  when  the  presi- 
dent asked  them  to  give  the  suffering 
people  coal  said.  “For  God's  sake  send 
us  soldiers  and  bayonets  and  guns  in- 
stead.” 

There  was  violence  there.  I regret  it. 
I cannot  help  regretting  it.  I know  that 
in  this  great  contest  I stand  for  the  weak. 
I have  stood  for  them,  for  now  these 
many  years.  I know  that  the  other  side 
has  every  means  for  influencing  public 
opinion.  I know  that  I cannot  come  even 
before  as  fair-minded  and  as  high-minded 
a body  of  men  as  th's  before  me.  and 
expect  all  of  our  positions  to  be  fairly 
understood  or  given  fair  weight.  I know 
that  we  speak  in  a way  against  things 
that  are.  I believe  that  we  dream  of 
things  that  are  yet  to  come,  and  hope 
for  things  that  the  future  still  holds  in 
store  for  us;  and  I know  that  whenever 
violence  and  bloodshed  ensues,  these  gen- 
tlemen, with  all  their  power  and  influence, 
are  ever  ready  to  charge  it  to  us.  I 
believe  there  is  no  laboring  man  and 
no  friend  of  the  laboring  man  but  what 
deprecates  it  and  hates  it  and  grievrs 
over  it.  as  I know  I deprecate  it  and  hate 
it.  and  grieve  over  it.  I want  to  say  in 
fairness  to  the  other  side  who  have  sa;d 
to  me:  “Oh,  but  you  have  not  discip- 

lined your  men.  You  have  not  discharged 
them  from  the  union,”  that  if  my  advice 
were  asked,  I would  not  do  it.  I would 
use  all  my  power  and  endeavor  to  pre- 
vent these  things,  if  I could,  but  I 
would  withdraw  from  no  human  being,  no 
matter  who  he  is,  no  matter  what  he 
had  done,  or  what  he  might  do,  I wou’d 
never  think  of  withdrawing  from  him  on# 
single  prop  or  support  that  might  pos- 
sibly help  him  the  more  to  be  a man. 
(Applause). 

The  Boycott. 

But  what  of  the  boycott?  This  is  in  the 
same  line.  I might  first,  in  speaking  of 
the  boycott,  refer  to  one  historical  ex- 
ample. You  and  I may  form  our  notions 
upon  the  strict  line  of  ethics  as  we  see 
that  line,  but  the  world  does  not  move 
upon  that  line  and  never  did.  Hatred 
and  bitterness  never  produced  a result 
in  the  hearts  of  men  and  in  the  hands 
of  men.  We  have  one  illustrious  example, 
at  least,  in  the  United  States,  of  the  boy- 
cott. of  violence,  of  the  scab,  and  that 
was  In  the  Revolution.  I have  just  been 
reading  the  history  of  the  loyalists  of 
the  American  Revolution  written  by  one 
of  the  professors  of  the  University  of 
Illinois.  There  is  not  one  specific  act 
that  is  charged  to  the  mine  workers  in 


this  case  but  what  was  charged  to  the 
loyalists,  to  those  men  whom  we  regard 
today  as  patriots  and  whom  on  every 
Fourth  of  July  we  teach  our  children 
to  love,  venerate  and  respect.  Not  one. 
One  hundred  thousand  men  in  America, 
men  good  and  true,  men  of  culture  ard 
refinement,  clergymen,  lawyers,  judges, 
hankers,  a hundred  thousand  of  the  men 
who  moved  in  the  highest  society  were 
driven  from  their  homes  into  exile,  their 
houses  burned,  men  murdered,  stoned, 
hung  in  effigy,  boycotted,  refused  asso- 
ciation, absolutely  driven  from  the  United 
States  never  to  return.  Nova  Scotia  was 
almost  settled  by  these  men.  While  to- 
day you  can  scarcely  find  a man  in 
America  who  would  trace  his  lineage  to 
loyalists,  while  everybody  whether  they 
have  a right  to  it  or  not  are  proud  to 
trace  their  lineage  to  the  fathers  who 
built  up  this  country  through  their  blof  d 
and  their  suffering  and  their  toil.  The 
forces  of  the  law  are  sometimes  ore 
thing,  the  forces  of  society  and  the  forces 
of  nature  are  quite  another.  You  and  T 
may  sit  here  and  judge  men  by  the  de  d 
letter  of  the  law.  We  may  say  that  th;s 
act  is  right  and  that  act  is  wrong,  but 
up  there  sits  the  living  God  and  He 
judges  the  acts  of  men  by  another  stand- 
ard from  ours.  He  does  not  weigh  with 
our  scales,  nor  measure  with  our  short 
tape  lines.  He  would  prepare  the  con- 
tinent to  raise  heat  for  men  and  He  sends 
a glacier  from  the  north  to  grind  it  and 
to  pulverize  it  to  the  soil.  He  would 
prepare  the  human  race  and  He  chooses 
a way  which  may  be  simply  divine  to 
him,  but  which  we  in  our  weakness  ard 
our  shortsightedness  cannot  comprehend 
and  cannot  understand.  You  cannot 
make  me  believe  that  the  God  whom  it 
is  said  notes  the  fall  of  every  sparrow 
was  unmindful  when  James  Winston  was 
killed,  or  that  he  was  unmindful  when 
the  coal  and  iron  police  shot  Patrick 
Sharp,  but  rather  that  in  His  own  in- 
finite way  and  for  His  own  infinite  pur- 
poses, which  we  cannot  understand.  He 
let  this  work  out  for  the  eternal  better- 
ment of  all  in  the  end. 

Ancient  and  Respectable. 

Now,  what  about  the  boycott?  Get  ire 
say  there  is  the  legal  side  and  the  moral 
side.  The  boycott  is  an  ancient  and  a 
respectable  weapon;  it  is  respectab'e 
when  they  use  it,  but  not  respectable 
when  we  use  it.  That  is  like  all  other 
weapons,  like  a gun,  or  a sword,  or  a 
revolver.  It  first  came  into  prominent 
use  in  this  country  at  the  time  cf  the 
American  Revolution,  but  it  was  old 
then.  When  our  American  women,  much 
as  they  liked  pretty  clothes,  in  those 
days,  refused  to  wear  them  if  they  wtre 
made  in  England  or  spun  in  England. 
Then  they  refused  to  meet  anybody  who 
wore  clothes  made  in  England  or  spun  in 
England.  Then  they  refused  to  meet  any- 
body that  did  not  refuse  to  meet  any- 
body that  wore  clothes  made  in  England 
or  spun  in  England.  (Laughter).  This 
was  our  ancient  boycott.  It  was  in  what 
we  now  believe  to  be  a righteous  cause 
and  when  our  historians  tell  about  it, 
they  do  not  say  oh,  how  wicked  and  how 
cruel  and  how  illegal,  and  they  do  not 
go  into  a panic  and  say  why  did  you  net 
apply  for  an  injunction  to  prevent  it. 
They  recognize  it  as  one  of  the  means 
that  was  used  then  to  gain  independence. 
We  might  have  got  it  without.  I do  not 
know,  nobody  knows,  but  they  got  it  that 
way.  Now,  I have  been  boycotted  a great 
deal  myself.  1 expect  to  be  as  long  as 
I live.  Sometimes  rightfully  and  some- 


MINE STRIKE  COMMISSION 


times  wrongfully,  generally  wrongfully. 
It  is  one  of  the  nenalites  that  we  all 
pay  for  doing  the  particular  things  we  do. 
Sometimes  it  is  a penalty  we  pay  for 
doing  right,  sometimes  a penalty  we  pay 
for  doing  wrong,  it  is  a penalty  for  doing 
differently  from  what  the  other  peop  e 
wish  us  to.  It  is  the  very  same  princi- 
ple that  makes  us  choose  our  compan- 
ions, our  society.  We  wrish  to  live  with 
and  associate  with  those  who  are  like  us, 
who  believe  with  us,  who  sympathize  with 
us  and  are  part  of  us,  and  we  boycott 
the  rest. 

Now,  1 take  it,  that  if  I wish  to  trade 
with  John  Smith.  I may.  First  I am 
talking  about  the  legal  part,  then  I want 
to  say  a word  about  the  moral  part  of 
it,  because  I am  one  of  those  old-fash- 
ioned people  who  believes  there  is  a dif- 
ference between  the  moral  law  and  the 
civil  law.  Once  in  a while  they  meet, 
but  not  often.  If  I wish  to  trade  with 
Smith  I may;  if  I do  not  wish  to  trade 
with  him  I need  not.  It  may  be  because 
I do  not  like  the  color  of  his  hair,  it 
may  be  because  I do  not  believe  in  the 
way  he  worships  God,  it  may  bo  because 
I think  he  does  not  pay  wages  enough. 
At  any  rate,  unless  I may  do  this,  1 am 
not  free,  and  I may  do  it.  I may  not 
only  refuse  to  trade  with  Smith,  but  t 
my  feeling  is  strong  enough  against 
Smith  so  that  I believe  he  is  an  evil  fori  e 
in  the  community,  I may  go  so  far  as  to 
say  I will  not  trade  with  anybody  who 
trades  with  Smith.  It  results  in  this,  and 
It  ever  must  result  in  this  and  ever  has 
resulted  in  this,  wherever  the  feeling  is 
intense  enough  and  deep  enough  men  aie 
divided  into  hostile  camps. 

Take  the  coal  strike,  a great  contest 
which  interested  every  man,  woman  ard 
child.  You  were  either  for  it  or  against 
it.  Take  the  War  of  the  Ifebellion,  about 
which  I heard  in  my  old  Western  Reserve 
home  in  Ohio— a place  from  which  John 
Brown  went  forth  on  some  of  his  glor- 
ious illegal  expeditions  to  free  the  slaves. 
We  used  to  hear  of  it  there,  you  hear  of 
it  everywhere.  If  the  feeling  is  deep 
enough,  men  range  themselves  into  hos- 
tile camps.  The  man  who  stands  for  lib- 
erty is  my  friend,  the  man  who  stood 
for  slavery  was  not  my  friend.  I lived 
with  my  class,  I ate  with  them,  drai  k 
with  them,  worshipped  with  them.  I ‘as- 
sociated with  them  and  I passed  the  oth- 
ers on  the  other  side.  So  we  have  here 
In  the  coal  region,  in  this  greatest  con- 
flict of  modern  times,  nothing  else  was 
discussed,  nothing  else  could  be  discussed, 
from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  oth  r 
men  were  taking  sides,  the  poor  were 
sending  their  wages  to  keep  the  mine  s 
on  a strike,  the  rich  were  asking  for  sol- 
diers to  shoot  them  down.  I must  be  on 
one  side  or  the  other.  I loved  my  side 
and  I hated  the  other  side.  If  a conflict 
is  deep  enough  these  two  rival  camps 
live  separate  and  distinct  from  each  oth- 
er and  the  boycott  is  there.  That  is  tie 
evolution  of  it  and  courts  may  condemn 
it  to  the  day  of  doom  and  they  cannot 
affect  it. 

Here  is  the  distinction  which  the  crim- 
inal law  makes.  If  I out  of  malice  to 
John  Smith— and  the  criminal  law  must 
look  to  the  human  heart,  for  it  is  a 
maxim  of  the  criminal  law  that  there 
can  be  no  crime  unless  the  heart  is  crim- 
inal—if  I out  of  malice  to  him  go  abroad 
and  seek  to  get  other  men  to  stay  away 
from  him  to  destroy  him.  that  is  a crime, 
but  if  I,  for  the  defence  of  myself,  for 
the  defence  of  my  race,  for  the  defence  cf 
what  I believe  are  the  rights  of  men,  si  e 
fit  to  avoid  John  Smith,  I have  the  right 


2<;5 


to  avoid  him  and  he  has  the  right  to 
avoid  me.  You  may  say  and  say  well 
that  the  law  cannot  always  determine 
v\  bother  the  motive  is  good  or  bad.  but 
the  law  must  determine  whether  the  mo- 
th e is  good  or  bad.  The  boycott  is  a 
right.  It  is  a right  which  they  take  and 
have  a right  to  take.  A man  who  wants 
a lawyer,  for  instance — I have  had  it 
happen  to  me  a good  many  times,  dis- 
cusses me  and  some  say  oh  no.  do  not  get 
him,  he  is  a disturber,  we  will  get  some- 
body else.  I cannot  help  it.  Of  course, 
I go  off  and  mourn  about  it,  but  I cannot 
help  it.  I know  I have  to  stand  it.  It 
is  one  of  the  penalties  I pay  for  my  opin- 
ion and  if  I should  run  for  an  office  I 
am  dead  sure  I would  be  boycotted  by 
any  number  of  people  because  they  would 
say  he  is  dangerous,  you  cannot  trust 
him.  If  some  other  man  runs  for  an 
office  who  is  a friend  of  the  powers  I 
think  are  in  the  wrong,  then  my  friends 
boycott  him  and  say  oh.  we  can't  have 
him,  he  is  an  old  fogy.  It  always  exists, 
it  always  has  existed.  I do  not  believe 
in  it  at  all  as  an  ultimate,  and  if  I get 
along  to  it.  as  I think  I will,  toward  5 
o'clock,  I will  explain  just  what  I think 
about  it.  I am  going  to  finish  today  and 
leave  the  commission  to  imagine  the 
things  1 have  not  said. 

The  Scab. 

The  scab  stands  in  exactly  the  same 
relation  as  the  boycott.  The  scab  is  a 
man  who  goes  in  to  take  the  place  of  his 
fellow  man  who  is  working  for  better 
conditions.  He  always  has  been  hated, 
he  always  will  be  hated.  Sometimes  I e 
is  a good  man,  often  he  acts  from  neces- 
sity, but  he  is  a man  who  is  a trait>  r 
to  his  class.  He  is  a man  who  is  used 
by  the  capitalist  to  destroy  the  rights 
and  the  aspirations  and  the  hopes  of  the 
workingman.  We  have  heard  a great 
deal  in  this  country  of  late  about  the 
scab.  I use  this  word,  I want  the  com- 
mission to  understand,  because  it  is  com- 
monly used,  not  because  I like  it  or  ap- 
prove of  it,  because  I do  not.  I speak 
frankly,  because  it  is  the  word  com- 
monly used  and  is  in  all  the  literature 
upon  this  question.  We  have  heard  a 
great  deal  about  him  in  these  modern 
days.  Mr.  Baer  and  his  fiiends  imag- 
ine no  doubt  that  they  are  fighting  ftr 
a grand  principle  when  they  fight  fer 
what  they  say  is  the  God-given  right  of 
every  man  to  work  for  any  wages  he 
sees  fit.  I do  not  know  about  any  sui  h 
God-given  right.  It  is  a little  uncertain. 
Rut  that  is  not  a God-given  right  these 
gentlemen  are  interested  in.  They  are 
interested  in  the  God-given  right  to  hiie 
the  cheapest  man  they  can  get.  They 
have  less  use  for  a scab  than  we  have, 
and  they  always  have  had  less  use  for  a 
scab  than  we  have  had. 

As  a class  this  body  of  men.  as  they 
have  shown  it  in  this  case,  have  always 
been  ready  to  take  the  benefits  that  flow 
from  organized  labor,  and  never  been 
willing  *to  fight  to  obtain  them.  They 
have  been  ready,  after  the  dangers  have 
been  encountered  and  the  contest  is  over, 
to  come  in  and  take  the  wages;  but  they 
never  have  been  ready  to  face  starvation 
and  hunger  and  abuse  in  the  common 
cause.  And  as  a rule  he  is  a man  who 
has  no  abiding  place  on  the  face  of  the 
earth.  He  does  not  live  anywhere  or 
stay  anywhere.  Ho  does  not  come  be- 
cause he  believes  in  anvthing  or  has  any 
convictions  on  any  subject  on  earth.  He 
is  a wandering  tramp,  ready  to  be  used 
by  anybody  who  will  pay  the  price  to  use 
him;  and  they  ship  him  from  one  city  to 


266 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


another  and  from  one  country  to  another, 
and  then  ship  him  from  Philadelphia  and 
from  New  York  and  from  Chicago  to  the 
coal  regions  to  take  the  place  of  men  en- 
gaged in  a heroic  struggle  for  their  lib- 
erty. And  then,  when  the  strike  is  over, 
they  let  him  walk  home  again,  or  let  the 
union  send  him  home 

That  is  his  history.  That  is  what  he 
has  come  to  be  recognized  as  by  men  who 
have  studied  this  question  and  who  have 
written  upon  the  subject. 

A Traitor. 

Let  me  read  to  you  an  extract  from  Sid- 
ney and  Beatrice  Webb's  History  of 
Trades  Unionists,  which  is  the  most  com- 
plete and  elaborate  and  scholarly  history 
that  has  ever  been  written  of  this  sub- 
ject. Not  that  everything  that  is  said 
in  this  history  is  true  or  correct  any  more 
than  any  other  history;  but  still,  there  is 
a vast  fund  of  information  gathered  up 
in  it.  and  a full  and  complete  treatment 
of  the  question: 

“The  trades  unionist  feeling  (against 
such  men)  is  expressed  in  the  following 
quotation  from  the  amended  laws  of  the 
Amalgamated  Society  of  Cordwainers, 
one  of  the  most  ancient  of  unions: 

“ ‘A  scab  is  to  his  trade  what  a traitor 
is  to  his  country,  and  though  both  may 
be  useful  to  one  party  in  troublesome 
times,  when  peace  returns  they  are  de- 
tested alike  by  all;  so  when  help  is  want- 
ed the  scab  is  the  last  to  contribute  as- 
sistance, and  the  first  to  grasp  a benefit 
he  never  labored  to  procure;  he  cares 
only  for  himself,  but  ho  sees  not  beyond 
the  extent  of  a day;  and  for  momentary 
and  worthless  approbation  would  betray 
friends,  family  and  country.  In  short,  he 
is  a traitor  on  a small  scale — he  first  sells 
the  journeyman,  and  is  himself  after- 
wards sold  in  his  turn  by7  his  master, 
until  at  last  he  is  despised  by  both  and 
deserted  by  all.  tie  is  an  enemy  to  him- 
self, to  the  present  age  and  to  poster- 
ity.’ ” 

In  these  great  social  travails  for  the 
elevation  of  the  working  classes  the 
union  has  ever  been  the  most  potent  pow- 
er and  the  greatest  influence,  rue  scab 
is  not  the  man  who  refuses  to  join  a 
union.  He  may  have  sentimental  reasons. 
He  may  not  care  to.  He  may  really  be 
lieve  in  it,  as  some  men  believe  in  the 
church  without  absolutely  joining  it.  But 
he  is  the  man  who,  in  the  midst  of  one  of 
these  great  conflicts,  lends  his  aid  and 
encouragement  and  help  against  his  class. 
He  is  the  man  whom  they  use,  as  they 
used  him  here  in  this  contest  with  the 
United  Mine  Workers,  to  try  to  destroy 
their  union  and  break  the  strike,  and 
whom  they  have  used  in  this  court  under 
the  sanction  of  an  oath  up  to  the  last 
moment  of  this  trial,  with  the  false  claim 
that  he  is  present  by  attorney  in  this 
court.  He  has  been  true  to  his  characte” 
from  beginning  to  end.  He  is  the  pliant 
tool  of  the  men  who,  in  this  great  strug- 
gle, wisely  or  unwisely,  are  against  the 
laboring  man.  And  it  cannot  be*but  that 
he  will  be  despised,  mistrusted,  hated  and 
reviled  by  all  men  who  love  liberty  and 
who  love  their  fellow  men,  and  who  have 
the  point  of  view  of  the  organized  labor- 
ing man. 

The  Eight-hour  Question. 

Now,  I must  say  a word  about  the 
eight-hour  question;  and  T am  sure  I am 
leaving  much  unsaid,  and  perhaps  1 
should  have  left  much  of  the  rest  unsaid. 
But  I have  been  talking  my  honest  feel- 
ings in  this  case  as  they  have  come  to 
me,  regardless  of  what  I think  of  the 


judgment  or  the  inclination  of  any  gen- 
tleman of  this  commission,  recognizing 
simply  that  they  wish  me  while  I spean 
to  speak  the  truth  as  I see  it  and  under- 
stand it,  and  leave  the  responsibility  with 
you. 

Let  us  see  about  the  eight-hour  ques- 
tion. 

This  demand  for  eight  hours  is  not  a 
demand  to  shirk  work,  as  is  often  claimed 
to  be  the  case.  It  is  a demand  for  the 
right  of  the  individual  to  have  a better 
life,  a fuller  life,  a completer  life;  and 
this,  like  everything  else,  depends  upon 
your  point  of  view.  If  I were  to  measure 
this  demand  from  the  standpoint  of  Mr 
Baer,  I might  be  against  it.  I cannot 
say.  I believe  he  is  wrong,  even  from  his 
own  standpoint;  but  I do  not  measure  it 
from  his.  I measure  it  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  man,  from  the  standpoint 
that  the  interest  of  government,  the  in- 
terest of  society,  the  interest  of  law  and 
of  all  social  institutions  is  to  make  the 
best  man  they  can. 

That  is  what  you  are  here  for  today 
That  is  the  purpose  of  every  law-making 
power.  It  is  the  purpose  of  every  church. 
It  is  the  purpose  cf  every  union.  It  is  the 
purpose  of  every  organization  that  ever 
had  the  right  to  live  since  the  world  be- 
gan. There  is  only  one  standpoint  from 
which  you  have  a right  to  approach  this 
question,  and  that  is  what  will  make  the 
best  man,  the  longest  life,  the  strongest 
man,  the  most  intelligent  man.  the  best 
American  citizen,  to  build  up  a nation 
that  we  will  be  proud  of — a nation  in 
which  there  will  be  no  more  strikes  and 
no  more  violence,  either  by  them  or  by  us. 

This  commission  can  view  it  in  no  other 
light,  and  I would  argue  it  in  no  other 
way.  Other  gentlemen  may  measure  it 
in  dollars  and  cents.  I shall  not.  Until 
the  American  people  have  gone  so  far 
and  moved  so  high  that  they  can  view 
a subject  from  an  ethical  standpoint,  1 
do  not  care  to  speak  to  them.  If  I can- 
not address  them  upon  that  side  I will  oa 
silent. 

Is  it  in  accordance  with  the  evolution 
of  man,  with  what  is  best,  that  we  should 
work  eight  hours  or  more  or  less?  “Ah," 
these  gentlemen  say,  “but  we  work  long- 
er.” No,  you  do  not  work  longer.  I know 
the  lives  of  men  of  ray  class.  I come  to 
my  office  at  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning, 
sometimes,  and  I stay  until  five  some- 
times. Sometimes  I may  stay  longer, 
sometimes  shorter.  But  the  rest  of  my 
time  I have  for  those  purposes  of  im 
provement  or  of  pleasure  that  seem  to 
me  to  respond  to  the  necessities  of  my 
being  and  to  make  as  much  of  myself  as 
I possibly  can. 

There  is  nothing  high  and  ennobling 
and  great  in  digging  coal — nothing.  It  is 
work.  It  does  not  tend  to  improve  th-: 
moral  being,  the  spiritual  being,  the  in- 
tellectual being.  Not  that!  These  gentle- 
men -who  toil  in  the  mines  or  at  the 
breaker  must  look  upon  this  only  as  toil 
— as  toil  to  furnish  them  the  means  of 
life,  for  bettering  their  condition  or  im- 
proving their  brain,  for  giving  them  a 
wider  insight  on  the  great  questions  of 
life  and  the  great  questions  of  humanity 
which,  after  all,  are  the  only  things 
worth  living  for,  v.  hen  everything  is  said 
and  done. 

Is  eight  hours  enough?  Is  it  enough? 
What  one  of  us— it  is  right  to  place  our- 
selves with  them ---would  wish  to  go  down 
below  the  earth  and  work  nine  or  ten 
hours?  It  will  not  do  to  say.  “Ah.  but 
they  are  a different  class  from  us!”  They 
are  not.  Under  other  circumstances,  with 


their  same  brains  and  yours,  some  of 
them  might  have  been  here  and  you 
might  have  been  there.  I can  point  you 
to  men  among  my  clients  who  are  the 
peers  of  any  of  us.  Nature  sent  them  to 
digging  in  the  earth,  while  it  placed  you 
and  me  in  responsible  positions  where  we 
could  develop  the  highest  faculties  that 
God  had  given  us. 

Right  Use  of  Leisure. 

That  is  the  difference,  and  that  is  all. 
Now,  the  manual  worker  who  asks  for 
shorter  hours  asks  for  what?  He  asks 
for  a breath  of  life;  he  asks  for  a chance 
to  develop  the  best  that  is  in  him.  It  is 
no  answer  to  say,  as  some  employers 
have  said  in  this  case,  “If  you  give  him 
shorter  hours  he  will  not  use  them  wise- 
ly.” 

He  will  not  use  them  wisely?  This  is 
scarcely  worth  reply.  Our  country,  our 
civilization,  our  lace,  is  formed  upon  the 
belief  that  after  all.  God  has  planted  in 
man  something  that  does  make  him  use 
his  privileges  for  the  best;  that  after  all, 
•with  all  his  weakness  and  his  imperfec- 
tion, there  is  still  in  him  that  divine 
spark  which  makes  him  reach  upward 
and  upward  for  something  higher  and 
better  than  he  has  ever  known;  and  he 
will  use  it  for  the  best. 

One  man  may  stumble;  ten  men  may 
stumble;  but  in  the  long  sweep  of  time, 
and  in  the  evolution  of  events,  it  must 
be  that  greater  opportunities  mean  a 
more  perfect  man,  mean  a higher  being, 
mean  a better  individual  life,  mean  a 
better  social  life,  mean  higher  and  bet- 
ter moral  and  ethical  ideas  because  of  the 
opportunities  that  were  given.  If  this 
were  not  true,  then  progress  would  be 
impossible.  We  must  assume,  in  all  of 
these  discussions,  that  the  tendency  of 
man  is  toward  perfection;  the  tendency 
is  upward  and  upward  and  onward,  to- 
wards the  heights  to  which  the  human 
race  has  not  even  yet  aspired  in  its  wild- 
est dreams.  And  it  is  given  to  us.  in  our 
humble  way,  and  with  our  limited  power, 
to  help  that  tendency  to  build  up  men; 
and  it  is  all  that  we  can  do. 

A Little  Mathematics. 

I do  not  care  io  dispute  with  Mr.  Baer 
as  to  whether  he  will  be  obliged  to  build 
a new  breaker  or  not.  I could  prove 
from  these  tables— and  I simply  suggest 
it  and  leave  the  commission  to  work  it 
out— that  last  year  it  would  not  have  add- 
ed more  than  twenty  minutes  -it  would 
not  have  shortened  the  working  day  more 
than  twenty  minutes  to  have  had  a full 
eight-hour  day;  and  I will  simply  sug- 
gest how.  The  breakers  now  do  not  av- 
erage eight  hours.  Cut  off  every  day 
where  the  breaker  runs  less  than  eight 
hours.  Those  days  would  not  be  affected. 
Only  those  days  where  the  breakers  have 
run  more  than  eight  hours  would  be  af- 
fected, and  when  you  take  every  day  that 
has  run  more  than  eight  hours  and  cut  it 
off  you  will  find  it  does  not  decrease  the 
working  day  twenty  minutes,  according 
to  the  tables  that  are  in  the  possession  of 
this  commission  and  on  file  here.  Noth- 
ing is  impossible  if  you  want  to  aocom 
plish  it.  and  anything  is  impossible  if  you 
do  not  wish  to  accomplish  it.  I have  no 
doubt  that  Mr.  Baer  could  bring  me  a 
string  of  figures  reaching  from  here  to 
his  New  York  office  to  prove  that  the 
world  would  come  to  an  end  if  we  did 
not  employ  child-labor  in  the  breakers; 
and  if  he  made  me  believe  it.  I would  say 
"All  right,  let  us  stop  working  the  chil- 
dren. After  all.  I think  perhaps  the 


human  race  was  wrong-,  and  we  had  bet- 
ter get  rid  of  it  and  start  over  again,  and 
see  if  something  cannot  be  developed.” 
I presume  that  the  figures  these  gentle- 
men might  prove  anything;  but  that  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  this  ques- 
tion. It  is  not  for  me  to  discuss  whether 
Mr.  Baer  must  build  a new  breaker.  That 
is  his  business.  I do  not  propose,  if  i 
( an  help  it,  to  have  Mr.  Baer  stand  in 
the  way  of  the  progress  of  the  human 
race  for  the  sake  of  any  breaker  in  the 
anthracite  region— and  the  biggest  break- 
er is  Mr.  Baer  himself.  (Laughter.)  If 
they  can  not  run  this  industry  with  what 
they  have  got  they  must  build  more,  and 
if  this  commission  are  as  broad  and  wise 
as  we  believe  they  are,  they  will  never 
consider  that  question  in  their  delibera 
tions. 

Labor  Saving  Machines. 

Why,  the  old  philosophers  two  thou- 
sand years  ago  who  were  dreamers  then 
—I  do  not  know  who  the  practical  busi- 
ness men  were;  their  names  have  ueen 
forgotten  and  they  have  not  come  down 
to  us.  (Laughter.)  Your  day  and  mine 
will  come,  Mr.  Lloyd  (laughter)  and  then 
there  will  be  no  Baers  to  dispute  with 
us.  The  only  trouble  is  t.nat  It  will  not  do 
us  any  good,  perhaps.  (Laughter.)  The 
old  philosophers  of  2,000  years  ago  used 
to  look  forward  into  this  nineteenth  and 
twentieth  century  and  dream  of  the  day 
when  the  brain  and  the  intellect  and  the 
ingenuity  of  man  should  give  birth  to 
wonderful  machines  that  should  do  the 
work  of  the  human  race,  and  when  men 
could  be  freed  and  left  to  work  out  their 
highest  development  and  the  best  that 
was  in  them  without  the  trouble  of  work. 
That  day  has  come.  We  have  these  won- 
derful machines.  Why,  within  125  years, 
within  a hundred  years,  the  productive 
power  of  man  has  been  increased  in  Eng- 
land and  America  almost  twenty-fold; 
some  say  more.  We  have  learned  to  ap- 
ply steam  and  electricity,  and  have  made 
such  cunning  machines  that  they  almost 
seem  to  think,  and  yet  in  spite  of  all  this 
although  the  human  brain  has  devised 
these  machines  to  do  the  work  of  man, 
our  men  must  toil  and  our  boys  and  girls 
must  continue  to  be  serfs. 

If  we  have  the  will,  there  is  the  way, 
and  the  way  is  easy.  Let  me  suggest 
this:  Man  whenever  he  has  turned  his 
attention  to  improving  his  condition  has 
been  able  to  do  it.  Whenever  wages  are 
high  he  invents  machines  to  supplement 
his  work  and  aid  in  the  production  of 
things.  In  America  where  wages  are  the 
highest  machines  are  the  plentiest.  Take 
these  children  from  the  breaker  and 
shorten  this  day  and  this  clumsy  machin- 
ery  will  be  improved.  You  will  find  ways 
to  increase  the  production  of  your  break- 
er and  ways  to  increase  production  of 
your  mine,  and  you  will  never  miss  the 
little  boys,  with  their  black  faces,  and 
you  will  never  be  sorry  that  you  allowed 
these  men  to  live  a little  while  longer  on 
the  face  of  the  earth. 

You  may  go  back  to  Egypt  and  you  will 
find  there  where  you  can  hire  men  for  10 
cents  a day,  and  5 cents  a day,  harnessed 
to  mills  and  wearily  pacing  around  to 
draw  water  up  from  the  earth;  because  it 
is  cheaper  in  Egypt  to  do  it  than  it  is 
to  build  a wind-mill  or  an  engine.  Here 
they  have  a wind-mill  or  they  have  an 
engine,  because  they  believe  in  the  dig- 
nity of  man.  If  man  is  a machine,  set 
him  to  work  to  draw'  the  water,  to  hew 
the  wood,  and  consider  him  principally 
or  solely  as  to  how  many  dollars  and 
cents  you  can  work  him  into.  As  Mr. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


Brooks  well  said  in  his  book,  if  the  ques- 
tion is  how  much  can  you  get  out  of  a 
man,  work  him  twenty-four  hours  a day 
and  let  him  die;  or  work  him  fourteen 
hours  a day  and  kill  him  in  a little  longer 
time;  or  w'ork  him  twelve  hours  a day 
and  destroy  him  yet  more  slowly.  But  if 
the  question  is  the  greater  and  the  broad- 
er and  the  higher  question,  What  is  a 
man  worth  and  what  is  a man  for,  then 
it  must  address  itself  to  the  mind  of  this 
commission  and  to  the  minds  of  every 
man,  What  hours  are  best  for  him?  What 
will  develop  his  highest  life,  his  body,  his 
mind,  his  soul,  his  aspirations,  his  hope — 
all  that  there  is  in  him  and  of  him  or 
may  be  in  him  and  of  him? 

Do  you  doubt  that  the  eight-hour  day  is 
coming?  Does  anybody  doubt  that  it  is 
coming?  It  is  here,  in  many,  many  in- 
dustries. It  is  hero  in  the  soft  coal  field. 
It  is  here  in  a large  number  of  indus- 
tries and  vocations  pursued  by  man.  Do 
you  suppose  ten  years  from  now  or  fifteen 
years  from  now,  we  will  be  discussing 
over  this  eight-hour  question?  And  can 
this  commission,  charged  with  one  of  th» 
greatest  responsibilities  that  ever  de- 
volved on  any  commission  or  body  of  men 
since  history  hegan— and  I do  not  say  it 
lightly,  because  I can  see  in  this  possi- 
bilities which  perhaps  none  of  us  dream 
of,  which  perhaps  were  not  even  thought 
of  when  we  were  brought  together  in 
conference.  It  seems  to  me  that  after 
this  there  can  never  be  a great  strife  or 
contest  like  this;  that  if  the  commission 
is  wise  as  they  will  be;  if  they  are  broad, 
as  they  will  be;  if  they  build  for  the  fu- 
ture, as  they  will;  if  they  build  for  what 
is  the  highest  for  men,  the  grandest  and 
the  best  for  the  human  race,  this  will  be 
one  of  the  milestones  in  the'  progress  of 
the  world.  We  will  never  go  back  to  the 
past.  We  will  never  go  hack  to  w'hat 
has  gone.  You,  my  friends  the  employ- 
ers, and  you,  my  friends,  the  workmen, 
will  learn  to  be  brothers,  will  learn  that 
there  is  a better  way  in  this  world  than 
calling  hard  names  and  throwing  stones 
and  shooting  guns  and  invoking  starva- 
tion to  settle  your  disputes. 

Weighing  Coal. 

I want  to  say  a word  about  weighing 
coal;  and,  as  I am  getting  to  the  case  you 
can  see  that  I am  getting  about  through. 
I have  no  desire  to  heap  any  expense  upon 
these  operators;  not  the  slightest.  I have 
no  desire  to  cause  them  any  trouble  what- 
ever, and  I sincerely  believe  they  will 
find,  after  all  Lhat  has  been  said  and 
done,  that  if  they  deal  fairly  and  wisely 
and  better  with  their  employes,  it  will 
be  better  for  them.  I do  not  believe  that 
these  men  can  ever  be  satisfied  excepting 
by  weighing  coal.  Let  me  call  the  atten- 
tion to  one  ex-superintendent  who  was 
called  here  by  the  employers  to  prove 
that  the  men  were  not  satisfied  with 
weighing  coal  and  that  they  went  back 
to  the  old  system.  I said  to  him:  ‘‘Why 
were  they  not  satisfied?'’  “Why,”  he 
said,  “sometimes  two  cars  of  coal  would 
come  up  that  vould  look  just  the  same 
size  and  one  of  them  would  weigh  three- 
quarters  of  a ton  more  than  the  other.” 
That  was  their  witness,  not  ours  They 
looked  the  same,  but  one  of  them  would 
weigh  three-quarters  of  a ton  more  than 
the  other,  and  yet  by  this  present  sys- 
tem each  man  gets  the  same.  Not  only 
that,  but  he  wrorks  a mile  or  two  down 
in  the  earth,  and  he  does  not  know  how 
much  to  put  on  the  top  of  the  car.  If  ne 
puts  on  too  much  he  loses  it.  and  if  he 
puts  on  too  little  he  is  fined.  He  never 


267 


gets  credit  for  putting  more  than  a load, 
and  he  is  always  docked  if  he  puts  on 
less.  Sometimes  it  falls  off.  Always  it 
settles.  It  is  uncertain. 

Now,  it  is  not  necessary  to  say  that 
these  people  are  cheating.  If  L cannot 
place  this  controversy  above  that,  then 
my  appearance  in  this  case  lias  been  a 
failure.  I do  not  care  to  place  it  upon 
any  such  ground  as  that,  but  you  never 
can  satisfy  intelligent  men  in  the  pay- 
ment of  their  wages  unless  you  can  as- 
certain with  exactness  w hat  those  wages 
are— never  in  the  world— and  this  can  not 
be  ascertained  except  by  weigh  , or  by 
yard,  as  is  admitted  in  the  region  where 
that  is  necessary.  I believe  it  would  be 
idle  for  this  commission  to  seek  to  har- 
monize these  men  unless  they  recognized 
this  demand.  It  brings  certainty  out  of 
uncertainty.  It  removes  that  feeling  of 
distrust  w'hich  ever  must  come  under  the 
old  conditions.  It  has  been  demanded  for 
many,  many  years,  and  the  question  can 
never  be  settled  until  it  is  settled  this 
way.  More  than  that,  this  commission 
must  recognize  the  law  of  this  state.  I 
want  to  speak  a word  about  that,  for  to 
my  mind  that  law'  is  perfectly  plain.  I 
can  not  understand,  as  a lawyer -I  may 
not  be  a very  astute  lawyer,  and  I may 
know  more  about  labor  questions  than  I 
do  about  law,  but  with  what  little  legal 
learning  I have,  that  statute  seems  as 
plain,  or  nearly  as  plain — to  say  “as 
plain”  is  perhaps  a little  extravagant— 
but  it  seems  almost  as  plain  as  any  stat- 
ute could  be  drawn. 

The  Law  as  to  Weight. 

There  are  certain  wTell-recognized  rules 
for  the  construction  of  statutes.  First, 
in  considering  a statute  you  must  place 
yourself  in  the  position  in  which  the  par- 
ties were  at  the  time.  Next,  you  must 
construe  it  to  give  meaning  to  it,  if  you 
can,  not  to  destroy  its  meaning,  but  to 
give  it  meaning,  construe  it  in  the  light 
of  what  is,  or  what  w'as,  and  construe  it 
to  give  it  a meaning  and  a substance. 
Now,  it  is  plain  that  at  that  time  coal 
w'as  mined  by  measure  and  b.v  car  and 
perhaps  by  weight.  There  is  no  evidence 
upon  this  question,  but. such  evidence  as 
there  is,  shows  it  was  always  mined  this 
way,  certainly  it  was  mined  by  box.  It 
is  plain  to  me  that  the  legislature  meant 
to  establish  that  in  every  place  where 
they  did  not  before  pay  by  the  tori,  they 
should  be  compelled  to  pay  by  the  ton 
or  by  the  yard.  No  meaning  can  he  giv- 
en to  the  statute  in  any  other  way.  It 
must  he  construed  in  that  light.  Neither 
can  I accept  the  suggestion  that  was 
made  here  that  it  is  not  before  this  com- 
mission to  decide,  because  we  have  sub- 
mitted our  grievances  to  the  commission 
and  they  are  to  pass  upon  it.  We  have  a 
right  to  such  protection  as  is  given  us 
by  the  laws  of  the  state,  and  w*e  have  a 
right  to  ask  the  commission  to  give  us 
the  benefit  of  the  law's  of  the  state.  We 
might  as  well  ask  the  operators  to  waive 
the  law  of  assault  and  battery.  We  have 
a right  to  assume  that  the  finding  of  this 
commission  will  be  consistent  with  the 
laws  of  the  state,  and  we  insist  upon  this 
as  being  the  law'  of  the  state  and  that  it 
must  govern  this  commission  in  this  case. 
Even  with  any  ambiguity  about  it,  it 
shows- the  public  policy  of  the  state.  It 
shows  that  the  legislature  presumed  that 
the  people  wanted  it  and  that  it  is  the 
public  policy  of  the  state,  and  nothing 
else  will  suffice. 


268 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Faults  of  the  Union. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  commission,  I 
have  spoken  about  as  long  as  1 will 
upon  this  case.  I want  to  say  a few  more 
words  about  this  union  and  some  of  the 
faults  that  has  been  found  with  it.  My 
good  friend  Torrey  stood  here  for  an  hour 
and  picked  flaws  with  the  constitution  of 
this  union.  He  is  a nice  gentleman  and  I 
have  no  objection  to  his  amusing  himself 
in  that  way,  but  that  is  my  client,  not  his. 
I do  not  propose  to  ask  him  to  reorganize 
the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Railroad  com- 
pany. I can  find  a whole  lot  of  things  in 
the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Railroad  com- 
pany to  change  if  they  would  give  me 
my  way  about  it.  But  that  is  none  of  my 
business.  I am  willing  to  take  them  as 
they  are.  These  labor  organizations  have 
never  gone  to  their  employers  and  asked 
them  to  fix  up  a schedule  by  which  they 
could  organize  their  union.  If  they  had 
done  this,  they  would  never  have  had 
any  union,  and  if  they  had  had  a union 
it  would  have  been  utterly  impotent  and 
useless.  This  is  ours,  and  while  it  is  full 
of  imperfections  like  all  human  work  of 
miners  and  dreamers,  stili  it  is  the  best 
we  could  do.  We  have  tried  to  patch  it 
up  some  since  this  commission  commenced 
its  sittings  and  we  are  willing  to  patch  it 
more.  There  are  things  in  that  constitu- 
tion of  which  I do  not  approve.  One  es- 
pecially which  was  placed  in  there  in 
view  of  the  Homestead  riots  which  I be- 
lieve has  no  relation  to  the  miners'  case, 
and  that  is,  that  they  protest  against  of- 
ficers to  guard  property.  I have  no  doubt 
but  what  a man  who  has  property  may 
hire  anybody  he  sees  fit  to  go  in  and 
guard  and  protect  it.  and  I have  no  fault 
to  find  with  it,  neither,  I take  it,  have 
they. 

But  they  need  r.ot  expect  impossibilities 
of  us.  We  are  willing  to  accept  their 
friendly  aid  and  counsel,  but  when  they 
come  into  court  and  allege  this  excuse  or 
that  for  not  dealing  with  us,  or  not  rec- 
ognizing that  we  are  cn  earth,  then  it 
comes  with  a bad  grace  from  them.  We 
have  opened  our  books,  we  hare  shown 
you  all  we  have,  we  have  given  you  our 
by-laws,  our  rules  and  kept  no  secret 
from  you,  and  you  have  not  even  given 
us  a copy  of  yours  and  we  have  not  asked 
you  for  a copy  of  yours.  I assume  they 
are  made  by  your  lawyers  to  serve  your 
ends  and  not  to  serve  ours.  That  is  our 
business. 

As  to  Incorporation. 

Neither  do  I take  kindly  to  the  sugges- 
tion of  those  gentlemen  that  we  should 
incorporate.  As  if  there  is  no  responsi- 
bility excepting  the  responsibility  that 
comes  to  incorporated  capital.  Strange  as 
it  may  seem,  in  some  respects  f am  very 
old-fashioned.  I think  a real  man  is 
about  as  important  as  an  incorporated 
man.  That  a real  flesh  and  blood  work- 
man is  about  as  important  as  a com- 
posite workman  used  to  figure  wages 
from.  I do  not  believe  in  this  wild  mania 
of  incorporation.  It  has  no  sort  of  place 
with  a trades  union.  You  want  to  teach 
the  people  of  the  United  States  this  new 
strange  doctrine,  tnis  doctrine  of  wealth 
that,  forsooth,  a person  which  man  made, 
which  is  a corporation,  is  greater  than  a 
person  which  God  made,  which  is  an  in- 
dividual? It  Is  a false  doctrine.  It  has 
produced  infinite  evil  in  America  and  its 
evil  has  just  begun.  T am  not  willing  to 
admit  for  a single  moment  that  anything 
can  be  gained  for  manhood,  for  righteous- 
ness, for  the  good  of  all  by  going  to  some 
petty  state  legislature  and  asking  to 


merge  the  individual  flesh  and  blood  man 
into  a corporation  created  by  the  state. 
Why,  we  were  told  in  the  argument  that 
the  state  of  New  Jersey,  of  all  places  on 
earth  the  state  of  New  Jeisey,  had  intro- 
duced a law  to  compel  labor  organiza- 
tions to  incorporate.  I understand  they 
have  introduced  one  down  at  Springfield, 
Illinois,  but  it  will  not  pass.  They  tell 
us  here  that  the  state  of  New  Jersey  is 
going  to  pass  such  a law.  Nobody  can 
tell  what  will  happen  in  New  Jersey. 
New  Jersey  has  been  busy  with  the  in- 
corporation business,  very  busy  indeed. 
New  Jersey  has  issued  its  bogus  charters 
and  sent  them  broadcast  over  the  United 
States,  its  charters  which  have  been  sim- 
ply letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  for 
every  pirate  that  sails  the  high  seas  of 
commerce  to  capture  what  he  can  get, 
(applause)  until  New  Jersey  has  be- 
come a stench  and  a byword  in  the  minds 
of  all  people  who  believe  in  fair  dealing 
and  justice  between  man  and  man.  These 
gentlemen  do  not  wish  to  incorporate. 
They  are  good  enough  as  God  made  them 
and  they  are  trying  to  got  better  just  as 
fast  as  their  masters  will  let  them.  If 
you  want  them  to  be  financially  respon- 
sible, I will  tell  you  how  to  do  it.  Just 
raise  their  wages.  (Applause.)  An  in- 
corporated man  has  not  any  more  money 
than  an  unincorporated  man,  unless  he 
peddles  his  watered  stock  upon  somebody 
more  ignorant  than  himself,  and  of  course 
we  cannot  do  that,  we  cannot  find  the 
people.  (Laughter.) 

Of  ail  the  nonsense  that  has  been  in- 
dulged in  by  the  false  and  chimerical 
friends  of  labor  unions,  and  I do  not  know 
but  sometimes  here  and  there  they  have 
got  our  real  friends,  I would  want  fur- 
ther investigation  about  that  and  I think 
they  would  want  further — this  talk  about 
incorporation  is  about  the  most  useless 
It  has  gone  so  far.  I know,  in  Chicago, 
that  some  of  the  fellows  have  commenced 
incorporating  political  parties,  and  they 
have  an  idea  that  if  four  or  five  fellows 
get  an  incorporation  for  the  Democratic 
party,  they  can  go  and  enjoin  anybody 
else  who  undertaxes  to  call  a convention. 
They  have  incorporated  the  Public  Own- 
ership Party,  the  Municipal  Ownership 
League,  the  People's  Party  and  various 
branches  of  the  Democratic  party.  They 
have  not  yet  tried  to  incorporate  the 
whole  Democratic  party,  perhaps  after  a 
few  more  campaigns  they  may  be  able  to 
do  it.  (Applause.)  But  that  is  another 
question. 

Corporation  Mad. 

We  have  grown  corporation  mad,  and  it 
all  comes  from  this  false  and  distorted 
and  baneful  idea  that  money  is  every- 
thing. Now  we  are  not  interested  in 
money,  excepting  wages.  We  want  some 
of  it.  but  we  are  not  in  the  business  of 
selling  watered  stock,  or  issuing  bonds  or 
anything  and  we  do  not  understand  how 
you  can  make  the  coal  miners  respon- 
sible by  incorporating  them.  And  if  we 
did  we  would  not  want  it  and  do  not  pro- 
pose to  have  anything  whatever  to  do 
with  it. 

Just  a few  words  about  the  union  and 
what  it  stands  for  and  then  I arn  going 
to  leave  you  to  imagine  alt  the  vest  that 
I know  1 would  have  said  if  I had  had 
anything  like  a reasonable  time  to  speak 
in.  (Laughter.)  Wo  have  been  getting 
along  pretty  well  out  west.  We  have  not 
only  known  the  union  there,  but  recog- 
nized it  and  dealt  with  It.  The  workmen 
and  the  employers  have  come  together 
and  they  have  agreed  on  a wage  scale 
and  they  have  raised  wages  which,  I sup- 


pose, will  not  commend  itself  to  our 
friends,  the  enemy.  But  we  have  not  had 
any  strike.  We  have  net  had  any  iock 
out.  These  gentlemen  have  gone  a step 
further  than  you  gentlemen,  they  have 
recognized  the  union.  They  have  not  in- 
sisted as  Captain  .lav  and  Captain  Phil- 
lips and  Mr.  Rose  and  Mr.  Jennings, 
managers  of  these  Important  corpora- 
tions, that  they  would  not  deal  with  any- 
body, or  recognize  anybody  not  in  their 
employ,  and  every  one  of  these  gentle- 
men said  so  on  the  witness  stand,  but 
yet  when  the  case  is  nearly  done  the 
lawyers  come  in  and  say.  "Oh.  yes.  we 
will  recognize  it."  They  have  said  it  very 
late. 

Trades  Unionism. 

Trades  unionism  is  not  all  good.  1 have 
been  its  friend  in  my  own  way  for  a 
good  many  years.  I have  fought  some 
of  these  battles  with  the  best  ability  and 
all  the  sincerity  that  I could  give  to  this 
cause;  for  I believe  in  it.  It  is  like  every 
other  instrument  created  by  man— it  is 
not  perfect,  and  it  is  in  an  evolutionary 
stage.  I do  not  claim  that  this  order  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  is  perfect.  We 
have  brought  together  in  two  short  years 
147,000  men,  who  speak  twenty  different 
languages,  of  all  degrees  of  intelligence, 
of  all  degrees  of  moral  character;  and 
we  have  moulded  them  as  near  as  pos- 
sible into  one  homogeneous  mass  God 
knows  they  are  not  perfect.  But  I ask 
you,  gentlemen  of  the  commission,  where 
else  in  the  history  of  the  world  has  any 
general,  either  in  industrial  life  or  on  the 
field  of  battle,  in  two  short  years  mould- 
ed together  such  a heterogeneous  mass 
into  such  a grand  and  valiant  and  brave 
and  noble  veterans  as  these  who  faced 
starvation  for  their  fellow-men?  Where 
else  has  such  a body  of  men  done  as 
well?  And  when  you  judge  us  and  pro- 
nounce upon  us.  pronounce  sentence  of 
good  or  sentence  of  evil.  I wish  you  to 
judge  us  in  the  light  of  the  facts  of  this 
case— in  the  light  of  all  the  impossibili- 
ties that  confronted  us— in  the  light  of  the 
severe  travail  through  which  we  passed  — 
in  the  light  of  the  material  which  we 
were  bound  to  use — in  the  light  of  the 
fearful,  appalling  odds  that  we  faced. 
Judge  us  in  that  light,  and  we  will  stand 
by  this  verdict. 

A Tribute  to  Mitchell. 

I am  not  here  to  pronounce  any  eulogi- 
ums  upon  men.  neither  am  I here  to  con- 
demn them.  But  I want  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  commission  to  the  officers 
and  the  leaders  of  this  magnificent  body 
who  have  fought  this  glorious  fight  and 
who  have  won  this  brilliant  victory, 
whose  rewards  will  be  reaped  so  long  as 
men  and  women  live  unon  the  earth.  I 
want  to  say  one  word  for  that  coal.  calm, 
considerate,  humane  leader  who.  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end.  has  come  out 
of  every  contest  victorious,  has  faced  ev- 
ery situation  and  won— not  because  he  is 
wiser,  not  because  he  is  greater,  not  be- 
cause he  is  better  than  the  rest,  but  be- 
cause his  face  is  turned  toward  the 
morning  and  the  future,  and  he  is  mov- 
ing with  the  progress  of  the  world. 

The  blunders  are  thc'rs.  and  the  vic- 
tories have  been  ours.  The  blunders  are 
theirs  because,  in  this  old.  old  strife  they 
are  fighting  for  slavery,  while  we  are 
fighting  for  freedom.  They  are  fighting 
for  the  rule  of  man  over  man.  for  des- 
potism. for  darkness,  for  the  past.  We 
are  striving  to  build  up  man.  We  are 
working  for  democracy,  for  humanity, 
for  the  future,  for  v.he  day  that  will  come 


too  late  for  us  to  see  it  or  know  it  or  re- 
ceive its  benefits,  but  which  still  will 
come,  and  which  will  remember  our 
struggles,  our  triumphs,  our  defeats,  and 
the  words  which  we  speak. 

These  men  are  not  perfect.  No  men 
are  perfect.  No  organization  is  perfect. 
Trades  unionism  in  some  ways  is  exclu- 
sive, is  monopolistic.  It  does  think  more 
of  the  men  who  are  in  it  and  of  it  and 
with  it.  I do  not  believe  in  monopolies 
and  exclusion.  I,  too.  am  something  of  a 
dreamer.  I long  for  a time  when  there 
will  be  no  exclusion  and  no  monopoly  an  I 
no  boycott,  either  by  them  or  by  us— for 
a day  of  universal  brotherhood,  when 
there  will  be  no  trades  unions  and  no  em- 
ployers. Trades  unions  are  for  today,  for 
the  present.  They  may  be  characterized 
as  war  measures,  as  agencies  in  this 
great  problem  of  lifting  the  human  race 
to  the  heights  to  which  it  will  one  day 
come.  They  are  agencies,  mediums  for 
that.  They  are  the  greatest  agency  that 
the  wit  of  man  has  ever  devised  for  up 
lifting  the  lowly  and  the  weak,  for  de- 
fending the  poor  and  the  oppressed,  for 
bringing  about  genuine  democracy 
amongst  men.  They  cannot  fight  forever, 
let  us  hope,  with  the  boycott  or  against 
the  scab. 

I long  for  the  time  when  the  boycott 
will  die;  when  no  man  can  look  at  his 
brother  and  say  to  him.  “In  my  legard 
you  are  not  my  equal."  when  each  man 
will  associate  with  his  fellow  men  on 
equal  terms;  when  no  man  will  be  a 
unionist  or  a scab;  when  no  man  will  be 
an  employer  or  an  employe. 

Mr.  Darrow’s  Dreams. 

My  dreams,  in  the  few  moments  which 
I can  give  to  dreams,  are  of  a universal 
republic  where  every  man  is  a man  equal 
before  his  Maker,  governor  of  himself, 
ruler  of  himself,  and  the  peer  of  all  who 
live;  where  none  will  be  excluded,  where 
ail  will  be  included:  where  the  work  of 
the  trades  union  is  done,  and  trades 
unions  have  melted  and  dissolved.  And 
I love  trades  unions  because  I believe 
they  are  one  of  the  greatest  agencies,  one 
of  the  greatest  agencies  that  the  world 
has  ever  known,  to  bring  about  this  time; 
one  of  those  agencies  for  the  building  up 
of  character  and  the  building  up  of  men, 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


and  toward  forming  that  ideal  republic 
which  has  been  the  hone  and  the  aspira- 
tion and  the  dream  of  every  great  soul 
who  ever  lived  and  wrought  and  died  for 
his  fellow  man. 

Gentlemen  of  the  commission,  1 have 
talked  long  in  this  case.  I feel,  in  leaving 
it,  that  there  are  many  things  T would 
have  wished  to  discuss.  My  regret  is  only 
that  I could  not  be  of  more  service  than 
I have;  I presume  that  is  the  regret  of 
us  all.  I may  have  been  seveie,  here  and 
there,  upon  some  of  these  operators  or  ail 
of  them.  I have  meant  to  say  my  say 
kindly,  justly,  charitably.  In  my  heart 
I have  no  feeling  against  one  of  these 
men.  No  doubt,  no  doubt  they  want  to 
do  the  right.  I do  believe,  as  Mr.  Oly- 
phant believed  of  us,  that  they  have  been 
misled;  that  they  are  blindly  placing  their 
faces  against  progress;  that  they  are 
standing  in  the  way  of  the  natural,  peace- 
ful. laudable  evolution  of  the  human  race. 
I do  believe  that  if  they  will  learn  to 
come  to  us  as  brothers,  as  friends,  as 
kindred,  they  will  find  that  we  will  ex- 
tend the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  I do 
believe  that  if  they  will  recognize  the 
good  in  our  men  as  we  will  recognize  the 
good  in  them,  we  will  join  hands  with 
them  to  make  a paradise  out  of  this  land 
which  has  flowed  with  blood. 

I wish  they  knew  us  I wish  they  could 
understand  that  back  of  the  black  hands 
of  these,  their  servants,  back  of  the  black 
faces  of  these  men  that  go  down  into  the 
mines  are  consciences,  intellects,  hearts 
and  minds  as  true  as  of  any  man  who  ever 
lived.  I wish  they  might  know  us — that 
we  are  here  and  we  are  there  to  do  our 
duty,  not  only  by  ourselves  and  for  our- 
selves, hut  to  do  our  duty  to  them;  to  Jo 
our  duty  to  that  great  mass  of  people 
who,  while  not  directly  interested  in  this 
contest,  still  have  suffered  because  of  it. 
If  they  meet  us,  if  they  recognize  us,  if 
they  come  to  us  and  let  us  come  to  them, 
we  will  prove  that  we  are  their  blethers 
and  their  friends. 

In  Conclusion. 

This  contest  is  one  of  the  important 
contests  that  has  marked  the  progress  of 
human  liberty  since  the  world  began — one 
force  pointing  one  way,  another  force  the 
other.  Every  advantage  that  the  human 


2fii» 


race  has  won  has  been  at  fearful  cost,  at 
great  contest,  at  suffering  endured.  Ev- 
ery contest  has  been  won  by  struggle. 
Some  men  must  die  that  others  may  live. 
It  has  come  to  these  poor  miners  to  bear 
this  cross,  not  for  themselves— not  that, 
but  that  the  human  race  may  be  lifted  up 
to  a higher  and  broader  plane  than  it  has 
ever  known  before. 

I did  not  come  into  the  state  of  Penn- 
sylvania to  stir  up  dissension  and  hatred 
and  bitterness.  I should  like  to  feel,  as 
I go  away,  that  I have  dealt  justly  and 
fairly  by  every  man  and  every  condition 
which  I have  met.  I should  like  to  feel 
that  my  efforts — sincere  efforts  they  have 
been — have  done  something  to  bring  peace 
and  harmony'  and  quiet  ana  prosperity  to 
this  valley  which  should  he  blessed,  hut 
which  has  been  cursed. 

(Great  and  long  continued  applause.) 

The  Hearing’s  Ended. 

The  Chairman:  Gentlemen.  notwith- 
standing the  protracted  hearings  of  this 
commission,  it  is  uue  to  counsel  and  to 
tnose  who  repiesemed  noth  sides,  that  I 
should  say  that  we  leave  you,  or  rather 
you  leave  us,  with  a feeling  on  our  part 
of  regret  that  the  long  association  which 
has  been  so  pleasant  to  us  is  about  to  he 
broken. 

It  speaks  well  for  counsel  on  both  sides, 
for  operators  and  for  Mine  'Workers,  tnat 
in  these  three  months  of  toil  together,  en- 
deavoring to  elicit  truth  and  to  hear  all 
that  could  be  said  on  both  sides  to  assist 
us  in  our  labors,  no  unpleasant  episod  > 
has  occurred— nothing  that  should  mar 
the  situation  in  which  reasonable  men 
and  citizens  of  a great  country  find  them- 
selves in  mutually  endeavoring  to  arrive 
at  just  conclusions  and  a just  verdict  in 
a great  controversy. 

As  I said  when  the  testimony  closed,  on 
behalf  of  the  commission  I thank  th  ■ 
counsel  on  both  sides  for  their  efforts  to 
present  their  several  cases  to  this  com- 
mission clearly  and  lucidly',  and  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  assist  us  in  our  delibera- 
tions. 

The  work  is  now  ours,  and  I know  that 
we  have  yrour  best  wishps  that  we  may 
have  a safe  and  a righteous  deliveranc  *. 
(Great  applause.) 


Ii70 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Report  of  tlie  Commission 


HISTORY  OF  THE  APPOINTMENT 
OF  THE  COMMISSION. 


Washington,  D.  C.,  March  18,  1903. 
To  the  President. 

The  undersigned,  constituting  the 
commission  appointed  by  you  Oct.  16, 
1902,  “at  the  request  of  both  the  opera- 
tors and  of  the  miners,”  “to  inquii  e 
into,  consider,  and  pass  upon  the  ques- 
tions in  controversy  in  connection  with 
the  strike  in  the  anthracite  regions”  of 
Pennsylvania  “and  the  causes  out  of 
which  the  controversy  arose,”  have  the 
honor  to  make  to  you  and,  through  you, 
to  the  parties  to  the  submission  the 
following  report,  findings,  and  award: 

The  authority  of  the  commission  thus 
appointed  to  make  a binding  award  is 
found  in  the  letter  of  certain  of  the 
said  anthracite  coal  operators  addressed 
to  the  public  a few  days  prior  to  the 
said  16th  of  October,  1902;  in  your  tele- 
gram of  that  date  to  Mr.  John  Mitchell, 
pursuant  to  said  letter,  and  in  his  re- 
ply, with  the  subsequent  action  of  the 
employes  of  the  various  coal  compa- 
nies engaged  in  operating  mines  in  the 
anthracite  coal  fields  of  Pennsylvania, 
as  represented  in  a convention  held  at 
Wilkes-Barre,  Pa.,  Oct.  21,  1902,  certi- 
fied to  you  by  the  olficers  of  said  con- 
vention. 

In  this  respect  the  pertinent  parts  of 
the  correspondence  aforesaid  are  as  fol- 
lows: 


EXTRACT  PROM  COAL  OPERA- 
TORS’ LETTER  RELATIVE 
TO  SUBMISSION. 

We  suggest  a commission  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  president  of  the  United 
States  (if  he  is  willing  to  perform  that 
public  service)  to  whom  shall  be  re- 
ferred all  questions  at  issue  between 
the  respective  companies  and  their 
own  employes,  whether  they  belong  to 
a union  or  not,  and  the  decision  of  that 
commission  shall  be  accepted  by  us. 

The  commission  to  be  constituted  as 
follows: 

1.  An  officer  of  the  engineer  corps  of 
either  the  military  or  naval  service  of 
the  United  States. 

2.  An  expert  mining  engineer,  experi- 
enced in  the  mining  of  coal  and  other 
minerals  and  not  in  any  way  connected 
with  coal  mining  properties,  either  an- 
thracite or  bituminous. 

3.  One  of  the  judges  of  the  United 
States  courts  of  the  Eastern  district  of 
Pennsylvania. 

4.  A man  of  prominence  eminent  as 
a sociologist. 

5.  A man  who  by  active  participation 


in  mining  and  selling  coal  is  familiar 
with  the  physical  and  commercial  fea- 
tures of  the  business. 

It  being  the  understanding  that  im- 
mediately upon  the  constitution  of  such 
commission,  in  order  that  idleness  and 
non-production  may  cease  instantly,  the 
miners  will  return  to  w'ork,  and  cease 
all  interference  with  or  persecution  cf 
any  non-union  men  who  are  working 
or  shall  hereafter  wrork.  The  findi  gs 
of  this  commission  shall  fix  the  date 
when  the  same  shall  be  effective,  and 
shall  govern  the  conditions  of  employ- 
ment between  the  respective  companies 
and  their  own  employes  for  a'  term  of 
at  least  three  years. 

George  P.  Baer,  President  Philadelphia 
and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  company, 
Lehigh  and  Wilkes-Barre  Coal  com- 
pany, Temple  Iron  company. 

E.  B.  Thomas,  Chairman  Pennsylvania 
Coal  company,  Hillside  Coal  and  Iron 
company. 

W.  H.  Truesdale,  President  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western  Railroad 
company. 

T.  P.  Fowler,  President  Scranton  Coal 
company,  Elk  Hill  Coal  and  Iron 
company. 

R.  M.  Olyphant,  President  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company. 

Alfred  Walter,  President  Lehigh  Valley 
Coal  company. 


TELEGRAM  OP  THE  PRESIDENT 
TO  JOHN  MITCHELL. 

White  House, 
■Washington,  Oct.  16,  1902. 
Mr.  John  Mitchell,  President  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  Wilke  - 
Barre,  Pa. 

I have  appointed  as  commissioners 
Brigadier  General  John  M.  Wilson,  Mr. 
E.  W.  Parker,  Judge  George  Gray,  Mr. 
E.  E.  Clark,  Mr.  Thomas  H.  Watkins, 
and  Bishop  John  L.  Spalding,  with  Ho  i. 
Carroll  D.  Wright  as  recorder.  These 
names  are  accepted  by  the  operators, 
and  1 now  most  earnestly  ask  and  urge 
that  the  miners  likewise  accept  this 
commission.  It  ’is  a matter  of  vital 
concern  to  all  our  people,  and  especial- 
ly to  those  in  our  great  cities  who  are 
least  well  off,  that  the  mining  of  ccal 
should  be  resumed  without  a day’s  un- 
necessary delay. 

Theodore  Roosevelt. 

EXTRACT  FROM  LETTER  OF  JOHN 
MITCHELL  TO  THE  PRESIDENT. 
"Wilkes-Barre,  Pa.,  Oct.  16.  1902. 
Hon.  Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  of 
the  United  States.  Washington,  D.  C. 
Dear  Sir:  Replying  thereto  (to  the 

above  telegram),  I beg  to  inform  you 


that  your  recommendations  were  sub- 
mitted io  the  members  of  the  executive 
boards  of  Districts  1,  7,  and  9,  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  and  they 
have  unanimously  agreed  to  call  a 
delegate  convention,  to  be  held  next 
Monday,  and  will  recommend  to  the 
convention  that  all  men  now  on  strike 
return  to  the  positions  and  working 
places  formerly  occupied  by  them,  and 
submit  to  the  commission  appointed  by 
you  all  questions  at  issue  between  the 
operators  and  mine  workers  of  the  an- 
thracite coal  fields. 

John  Mitchell, 

President  United  Mine  Workers  cf 
America. 

ACTION  OF  THE  MINE  WORKERS’ 
REPRESENTATIVES  IN  CONVEN- 
TION, AGREEING  TO  THE  SUB- 
MISSION, AS  CERTIFIED  BY  THE 
OFFICERS  OF  SAID  CONVEN- 
TION. 

Wilkes-Barre,  Pa.,  Oct.  21.  1902. 
Hon.  Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  « f 
the  United  States,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Dear  Sir:  We,  the  representatives  of 

the  employes  of  the  various  coal  com- 
panies engaged  in  operating  mines  in 
the  anthracite  coal  fields  of  Pennsylva- 
nia, in  convention  assembled,  havi  g 
under  consideration  your  telegram  o 
Oct.  16,  1902,  addressed  to  John  Mitchell, 
president  United  Mine  Workers  o:‘ 
America,  have  decided  to  accept  t ie 
proposition  therein  embodied  and  sub- 
mit all  the  questions  at  issue  between 
the  operators  and  mine  workers  of  the 
anthracite  coal  region  for  adjustment 
to  the  commission  which  you  have 
named.  In  pursuance  of  that  decision 
we  shall  report  for  work  on  Thursday 
morning,  Oct.  23,  in  the  positions  and 
working  places  occupied  by  us  prior 
to  the  inauguration  of  the  strike.  We 
have  authorized  John  Mitchell,  presi- 
dent of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  with  such  assistants  as  he 
may  select,  to  represent  us  in  all  hear- 
ings before  the  commission. 

John  Mitchell, 
Chairman  of  Convention. 

W.  B.  Wilson, 
Secretary  of  Convention. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  commis- 
sion is  authorized  by  two  parties  to  a 
controversy  to  make,  as  to  them,  a 
binding  award.  The  language  of  the 
proposition  made  by  the  operators  is 
that  “a  commission  be  appointed  by  the 
president  * * * to  whom  shall  be  re- 
ferred all  questions  at  issue  betwe.n 
the  respective  companies  and  their  own 
employes,  whether  they  belong  to  a 
union  or  not,  and  the  decision  of  that 
commission  shall  be  accepted  by  us,” 


and  that  of  the  acceptance  by  the  rep- 
resentative convention  of  mine  workers 
being-  that  they  “accept  the  proposition 
(for  a commission  as  proposed  by  the 
operators)  * * * and  submit  all  the 
questions  at  issue  between  the  operato.s 
and  mine  workers  of  the  anthracite 
coal  region  for  adjustment  to  the  com- 
mission which  you  have  named.” 

The  signatory  operators  and  their  em- 
ployes represented  in  the  Wilkes-Barre 
convention  were  therefore  in  substan- 
tial agreement  as  to  the  fact  and  the 
scope  of  the  submission  proposed. 

Mr.  Carroll  D.  Wright  having  been, 
with  the  consent  of  both  sides,  added  to 
the  commission,  the  undersigned  re- 
ceived from  you  the  following  letter: 


PRESIDENT’S  APPOINTMENT  OF 
THE  COMMISSION. 

White  House, 
Washington,  Oct.  23,  1902. 
To  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commis- 
sion. 

Gentlemen:  At  the  request  both  of  the 

operators  and  of  the  miners,  I have  ap- 
pointed -you  a commission  to  inquire 
into,  consider,  and  pass  upon  the  ques- 
tions in  controversy  in  connection  with 
the  strike  in  the  anthracite  region,  and 
the  causes  out  of  which  the  controversy 
arose.  By  the  action  you  recommend, 
which  the  parties  in  interest  have  in 
advance  consented  to  abide  by,  you  will 
endeavor  to  establish  the  relations  be- 
tween the  employers  and  the  wage 
workers  in  the  anthracite  fields  on  a 
just  and  permanent  basis,  and,  as  far  as 
possible,  to  do  away  with  any  causes 
for  the  recurrence  of  such  difficulties  as 
those  which  you  have  been  called  in  to 
settle.  I submit  to  you  herewith  the 
published  statement  of  the  operators, 
following  which  I named  you  as  the 
members  of  the  commission. 

Theodore  Roosevelt. 

By  virtue  of  the  authority  conferred 
in  the  premises,  the  commission  met  in 
Washington  October  24,  organized  by 
choosing  a chairman,  and  directed  the 
recorder  to  notify  the  signatory  oper- 
ators, parties  to  the  submission,  and 
John  Mitchell,  as  chairman  of  the 
Wilkes-Barre  convention,  to  appear  be- 
fore the  commission  in  Washington  Oc- 
tober 27,  1902.  Pursuant  to  this  notice, 
all  the  signatory  operators  appeared  by 
counsel,  and  the  mine  workers  repre- 
sented in  the  said  Wilkes-Barre  conven- 
tion by  John  Mitchell  and  others  asso- 
ciated with  him.  After  hearing  the  sug- 
gestions of  counsel  as  to  the  mode  "of 
procedure,  it  was  decided  to  adjourn,  to 
meet  in  the  city  of  Scranton  on  the  14th 
of  November,  that  in  the  meantime 
there  might  be  filed  with  the  commis- 
sion statements  of  claim  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  mine  workers  and  an- 
swers thereto  by  the  signatory  oper- 
ators, and  that  other  preparation  might 
be  made  for  hearing  the  parties  to  the 
controversy. 

It  was  also  determined,  in  order  to 
enable  the  members  of  the  commission 
to  familiarize  themselves  to  some  ex- 
tent with  the  physical  conditions  of  the 
anthracite  region,  and  the  practical 
operation  of  mining  coal,  that  they 
would,  before  beginning  the  hearings, 
make  a tour  of  the  said  region,  visiting 
such  of  the  mines  as  should  be  indicated 
by  a joint  committee  representing  the 
operators  and  the  miners,  and  observ- 
ing, so  far  as  they  might  have  oppor- 
tunity, the  general  conditions  under 
which  the  miners  worked  and  lived. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


Seven  days  were  accordingly  devoted 
to  such  investigation.  The  commis- 
sion was  thus  enabled  to  learn  much 
that  has  proved  invaluable  in  the 
subsequent  hearings  and  delibera- 
tions. Every  facility  was  furnished  by 
the  operators  for  a thorough  examina- 
tion of  the  mines,  breakers,  and  the 
various  machinery  for  pumping,  venti- 
lating, and  carrying  on  generally  the 
mining  operations. 

Prior  to  the  opening  of  the  hearings 
in  Scranton,  the  commission  caused  let- 
ters to  be  sent  in  its  name  to  all  the 
coal  companies  and  individual  oper- 
ators of  the  anthracite  region  of  Penn- 
sylvania not  already  parties  to  the  sub- 
mission, inviting-  them  severally  to  be- 
come parties,  by  intervention  and 
agreement  to  be  bound  by  the  award 
to  be  made,  and  by  filing  written  notice 
to  that  effect  with  the  recorder  of  the 
commission. 

LIST  OF  INDEPENDENT  OPER- 
ATORS. 

The  following  list  comprises  all  the 
independent  operators,  so  called,  known 
to  the  commission"  and  to  whom  the  let- 
ter cited  above  was  sent: 

M.  B.  Williams. 

T.  M.  Righter. 

Llewellyn  Coal  company. 

Mount  Jessup  Coal  company. 

Moosic  Coal  company. 

Dolph  Coal  company. 

Riverside  Coal  company. 

Carney  & Brown. 

Black  Diamond  Coal  company. 

Barton  Coal  company. 

Austin  Coal  company. 

Green  Ridge  Coal  company. 

William  Connell  & Co. 

Jermvn  & Co. 

Elliott,  McClure  & Co. 

A.  D.  & F.  M.  Spencer. 

Nay  Aug  Coal  company. 

Bull’s  Head  Coal  company. 

North  American  Coal  company. 

Gibbons  Coal  company. 

People’s  Coal  company. 

Clear  Spring  Coal  company. 

W.  G.  Payne  & Co. 

Kingston  Coal  company. 

Red  Ash  Coal  company. 

Parrish  Coal  company. 

Chauncey  Coal  company. 

A.  Pardee  & Co. 

Union  Coal  company. 

W.  R.  McTurk  & Co. 

Stevens  Coal  company. 

Melville  Coal  company. 

Avoca  Coal  company. 

Raub  Coal  company. 

Wyoming  Coal  and  Land  company. 

Plymouth  Coal  company. 

Alden  Coal  company. 

G.  B.  Markle  & Co. 

Estate  of  A.  S.  Van  Wickle. 

Pardee  Bros.  & Co. 

Calvin  Pardee  & Co. 

Upper  Lehigh  Coal  company. 

M.  S.  Kemmerer. 

J.  S.  Wentz  & Co. 

Lentz,  Lilly  & Co. 

Silver  Brook  Coal  company. 

Mill  Creek  Coal  company. 

Thomas  Coal  company. 

Lawrence  Coal  company. 

Cambridge  Coal  company. 

Brookwood  Coal  company. 

C.  M.  Dodson  & Co. 

Midvalley  Coal  company. 

Enterprise  Coal  company. 

Lehigh  Coal  and  Navigation  company. 

Dodson  Coal  company. 

Bedell  Brothers. 

Lytle  Coal  company. 


271 


T.  M.  Dodson  & Co. 

Buck  Run  Coal  company. 

Excelsior  Coal  company. 

Robertson  & Law. 

George  Graeber. 

William  Penn  Coal  company. 

Thomas  R.  Brooks. 

St.  Clair  Coal  company. 

East  Ridge  Coal  company. 

Pine  Hill  Coal  company. 

Susquehanna  Coal  company. 

Shipman  Coal  company. 

Girard  Coal  company. 

Traders’  Coal  company. 

I.  A.  Stearns. 

Warrior  Run  Coal  company. 

From  time  to  time  during  the  progress 
of  the  hearings  interventions  were  made 
by  the  parties  as  named  above,  and  they 
were  added  to  the  original  signatory 
companies  proposing  the  submission. 
The  following  independent  or  individual 
operators,  some  of  whom  filed  answers 
and  all  of  whom  agreed  to  abide  by  the 
award  of  the  commission,  were  repre- 
sented by  counsel: 

Dolph  Coal  company. 

Black  Diamond  Coal  company. 

Green  Ridge  Coal  company. 

Nay  Aug  Coal  company. 

Carney  & Brown. 

William  Connell  & Co. 

Elliott,  McClure  & Co. 

Wyoming  Coal  and  Land  company. 
George  F.  Lee  & Co. 

Gardner  Creek  Coal  company. 

William  Richmond. 

Riverside  Coal  company. 

North  End  Coal  company. 

West  End  Coal  company. 

Robertson  & Law. 

Gibbons  Coal  company. 

Rissinger  Bros.  & Co. 

Jermyn  & Co. 

Austin  Coal  company. 

A.  D.  & F.  M.  Spencer. 

Stevens  Coal  company. 

Clear  Spring  Coal  company. 

Raub  Coal  company. 

East  Boston  Coal  company. 

Buck  Run  Coal  company. 

Northern  Anthracite  Coal  company. 
People’s  Coal  company. 

Pine  Hill  Coal  company. 

Enterprise  Coal  company. 

Parrish  Coal  company. 

Lehigh  Coal  and  Navigation  company. 
G.  B.  Markle  & Co. 

A.  Pardee  & Co. 

Pardee  Bros.  & Co. 

Calvin  Pardee  & Co. 

J.  S.  Wentz  & Co. 

C.  M.  Dodson  & Co. 

Upper  Lehigh  Coal  company. 

Silver  Brook  Coal  company. 

St.  Clair  Coal  company. 

Estate  of  A.  S.  Van  Wickle. 

The  following  companies  stated  their 
willingness  to  abide  by  the  award  of  the 
commission,  but  were  not  represented 
before  it  by  counsel  or  otherwise: 
Susquehanna  Coal  company. 

William  Penn  Coal  company. 

Mineral  Railroad  and  Mining  com- 
pany. 

Summit  Branch  and  Lykens  Valley 
Coal  company. 

Union  Coal  company. 

Thomas  Coal  company. 

Coxe  Bros.  & Co. 

Mount  Jessup  Coal  company. 

Lytle  Coal  company. 

Alden  Coal  company. 

In  the  appendix  will  be  found  a list 
of  counsel  and  the  companies  they  rep- 
resent. 

Upon  the  opening  of  the  hearings  in 
Scranton  an  application  to  be  heard  be- 


/ 


272 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


fore  the  commission  was  presented  by 
Messrs.  Lenahan  & O’Brien,  as  counsel 
lor  certain  non-union  mine  workers. 
This  application  was  duly  considered, 
and  it  was  ordered  that  the  counsel 
aforesaid  file  their  authority  for  their 
appearance,  together  with  an  agreement 
to  be  bound  by  the  award  of  the  com- 
mission. In  compliance  with  this  order, 
a power  of  attorney  executed  by  more 
than  two  thousand  persons,  represent- 
ing themselves  to  be  non-union  mine 
workers,  was  filed,  with  an  agreement 
on  their  part  to  be  bound  by  the  award, 
and  in  the  subsequent  proceedings  said 
counsel  appeared  and  took  part,  pro- 
ducing testimony  and  participating  in 
the  final  arguments. 

For  the  convenience  of  those  working 
in  the  mines,  the  commission  heard  all 
the  testimony  on  behalf  of  the  mine 
workers,  including  part  of  that  produc- 
ed by  the  nonunion  mine  wmrkers,  in 
the  city  of  Scranton,  and  then  adjourn- 
ed to  meet  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
where  was  heard  the  final  testimony  of 
the  nonunion  mine  workers  and  that 
adduced  by  the  operators,  and  the  re- 
butting testimony  for  the  mine  work- 
ers. These  proceedings  were  conclud- 
ed Thursday,  February  5,  and  adjourn- 
ment was  taken  till  Monday,  February 
9,  to  enable  counsel  to  prepare  argu- 
ments, to  the  hearing  of  which  a week 
was  devoted. 

The  total  number  of  witnesses  ex- 
amined before  the  commission  was  55S. 
The  number  called  by  the  counsel  for 
the  striking  anthracite  mine  workers 
was  240;  by  counsel  for  the  nonunion 
men,  153;  by  counsel  for  the  operators. 
154,  and  by  the  commission,  11.  The 
record  of  testimony  makes,  10.047  legal 
cap  pages,  besides  a vast  quantity  of 
exhibits,  statistics  and  other  pertinent 
matter. 

Arguments  on  behalf  of  the  striking 
mine  workers  were  made  by  Messrs. 
McCarthy,  Lloyd.  Brumm,  and  Darrow; 
on  behalf  of  the  nonunion  men,  by  Mr. 
Lenahan:  on  behalf  of  the  independent 
operators,  by  Messrs.  Reynolds,  Burns 
and  Dickson;  and  on  behalf  of  the 
signatory  operators,  by  Messrs.  Torrey, 
Warren,  Go  wen,  Wolverton  and  Baer. 
Mr.  Baer  closing  for  the  operators  and 
Mr.  Darrow  for  the  miners.  Briefs 
were  also  filed  by  Messrs.  Alfred  Hand 
and  Andrew'  H.  McClintock,  and  a 
printed  argument  by  Mr.  H.  T.  New- 
comb. 

At  the  close  of  the  hearings  in  Phila- 
delphia the  commission  adjourned  to 
Washington  for  consideration  of  the 
testimony  and  for  the  deliberation 
necessary  to  the  formation  of  its  find- 
ings and  award.  Before  entering  upon 
a review  of  the  deliberations  of  the 
commission,  it  seems  wise  to  present 
some  account  of  the  anthracite  regions, 
the  cause  and  course  of  the  strike,  and 
other  matters  necessary  to  a full  un- 
derstanding of  the  situation. 


ANTHRACITE  COAL  REGION  AND 
ITS  PRODUCTION. 

There  is  probably  no  other  commodity 
entering  in  to  human  consumption 
which  possesses  so  much  the  character 
of  a natural  monopoly  as  the  anthracite 
coal  of  Pennsylvania.  The  only  other 
known  deposits  of  anthracite  coal  of 
economic  value  in  the  United  States 
are  in  Colorado  and  New  Mexico,  but 
these  are  all  comparatively  insignifi- 
cant, yielding  less  than  100,000  tons 


annually.  Practically,  therefore,  the 
entire  source  of  supply  of  this  fuel  is 
confined  to  an  area  of  496  square  miles, 
in  nine  counties  in  the  state  of  Penn- 
sylvania. Of  these  nine  counties,  five, 
i.  e..  Lackawanna,  Luzerne,  Schuyl- 
kill, Northumberland  and  Carbon,  pro- 
duce ninety-six  per  cent  of  the  total 
output.  The  four  less  important  pro- 
ducing counties  are  Susquehanna, 
Dauphin.  Columbia,  and  Sullivan. 

The  output  of  anthracite  coal  in  1901 
amounted  to  60.242,560  long  tons,  with 
a value  at  the  mines  of  $112,504,020.  As 
an  indication  of  the  comparative  im- 
portance of  this  industry  it  may  be 
stated  that  the  value  of  this  product 
exceeded  that  of  any  other  nonmetallic 
product  of  the  United  States  in  1901, 
with  the  exception  of  bituminous  coal, 
and  exceeded  the  value  of  any  metallic 
product,  with  the  exception  of  pig  iron. 
It  amounted  to  considerably  more  than 
ten  per  cent,  of  the  entire  value  of 
the  mineral  output  of  the  United  States 
in  1901. 

The  official  records  of  anthracite  coal 
production  date  from  1820.  in  which 
year  365  tons  were  mtned  and  shipped 
from  the  Lehigh  region,  but  for  more 
than  fifty  years  previous  to  this  date 
anthracite  coal  had  been  known  to 
exist  and  had  been  mined  to  a small 
extent,  principally  for  local  consump- 
tion. The  discovery  of  anthracite  was 
made  in  1762  by  Connecticut  pioneers 
in  the  Wyoming  Valley,  but  so  far  as 
known,  none  of  it  was  used  nor  was 
any  attempt  made  to  use  it  until  1768. 
when  a small  amount  was  consumed 
for  domestic  purposes.  In  the  following 
year  a successful  attempt  to  utlize  an- 
tracite  in  a smithing  forge  was  made 
by  Obadiah  Gore. 

The  regular  use  of  the  new  fuel  ("com- 
monly called  “black  stones”  by  the 
pioneers)  may  be  said  to  have  begun  at 
about  the  breaking  out  of  the  revolu- 
tionary war,  as  in  1775  some  coal  was 
mined  on  the  banks  of  the  Susquehanna 
river  near  where  Pittston  now  stands, 
and  from  1776  to  17S0  coal  was  mined 
near  Wilkes-Barre  and  shipped  to  Car- 
lisle. Its  first  use  for  metallurgical 
purposes  is  recorded  as  having  occurred 
in  1778,  w'hen  nails  were  made  with  an- 
thracite coal  by  Judge  Jesse  Fell,  of 
Wilkes-Barre.  From  this  until  the 
opening  of  the  nineteenth  century  fur- 
ther discoveries  were  made  throughout 
the  region  and  attempts  were  made  to 
ship  the  coal  to  Philadelphia,  but  much 
difficulty  was  encountered  in  convinc- 
ing the  conservative  inhabitants  of  that 
city  that  the  “black  stones”  were  cap- 
able of  combustion  and  of  producing 
heat.  The  firm  of  Abijah  Smith  & Co., 
of  Plymouth,  in  the  Wyoming  Valley,  is 
given  credit  for  the  first  commercial 
venture  in  the  mining  and  marketing 
of  anthracite  coal.  This  firm  in  1807 
mined  55  tons  of  anthracite,  which 
was  shipped  to  other  points  and  market- 
ed. The  following  year  the  same  firm 
shipped  several  ark  loads  by  the  Sus- 
quehanna river  to  the  town  of  Colum- 
bia. 

In  1812  the  new  fuel  was  successfully 
used  in  an  iron  furnace  in  Philadelphia, 
and  a small  quantity  was  shipped  to 
New  York  and  sold  at  $15  a ton.  A num- 
ber of  mines  were  opened  in  the  different 
regions  in  the  next  five  years,  and  in 
ISIS  the  Lehigh  Navigation  company 
and  the  Lehigh  Coal  company  were  or- 
ganized and  were  shortly  afterwards 
merged  into  what  is  still  known  as 
the  Lehigh  Coal  and  Navigation  com- 


pany. The  first  year  that  this  company 
shipped  coal  was  in  1820,  fifty-eight 
years  after  the  discovery  in  the  Wyom- 
ing Valley,  and  amounted  in  that  year, 
as  previously  stated,  to  365  tons.  The 
following  year  the  shipments  rose  to 
1,073  tons.  In  1S22  the  Schuylkill  region 
was  opened  and  the  production  from 
these  two  fields  rapidly  increased  until 
1829,  when  the  Wyoming  region  began 
shipping.  The  development  of  this  in- 
dustry since  these  early  years  of  strug- 
gle is  shown  in  the  following  table: 
(See  Table  No.  1.) 

As  seen,  the  Lehigh  region,  which 
was  the  first  opened,  became  second 
in  importance  in  1828.  and  the  Wyoming 
region,  the  last  to  be  developed,  took 
first  place  in  1867,  retaining  its  suprem- 
acy to  the  present  time.  In  the  eighty- 
two  years  of  recorded  shipments  the 
Wyoming  region  has  produced  nearly 
50  per  cent.,  the  Schuylkill  region  a 
little  over  33  per  cent.,  and  the  Lehigh 
region  about  17  per  cent,  of  the  total 
output.  The  total  shipments  in  these 
eighty- two  vears  have  amounted  to 
1.225,581.269  long  tons.  Adding  to  this 
the  estimated  local  and  colliery  con- 
sumption of  about  10  per  cent,  of  the 
shipments,  the  total  production  has 
amounted  to  about  1,350,000,000  long 
tons. 

Although  the  value  of  anthracite  coal 
as  a fuel  was  demonstrated  in  the  first 
quarter  of  the  last  century,  and  al- 
though in  1836  the  Franklin  institute, 
of  Philadelphia,  offered  a prize  to  any- 
one who  should  first  produce  twenty 
tons  of  pig  iron  by  use  of  anthracite, 
it  was  not  successfully  employed  in 
blast-furnace  practice  until  1S3S.  and 
the  Franklin  institute  prize  was  not 
awarded.  About  the  middle  of  the  last 
century  anthracite  began  to  be  largely 
used  for  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron, 
and  in  1855  exceeded  the  use  of  charcoal 
for  that  purpose.  Its  general  utilization 
for  this  purpose,  however,  was  some- 
what short  lived.  The  use  of  coke,  a 
product  from  bituminous  coal,  was 
growing  rapidly,  and  in  1S75  anthracite 
fell  behind  that  fuel  in  blast-furnace 
consumption.  Since  1S75  its  decline  for 
blast-furnace  use  has  been  quite  rapid, 
and  at  the  present  time  very  little  an- 
thracite coal  finds  its  way  into  pig- 
iron  manufacture. 

This  decline  has  had  a material  effect 
upon  the  anthracite  industry  beyond 
of  the  mere  fact  of  the  loss  of  an  im- 
portant market.  The  coal  formerly  sold 
for  blast-furnace  use  was  lump  coal. 
Tt  was,  therefore,  a profitable  product. 
The  cutting  off  of  this  outlet  has  made 
necessary  the  breaking  down  of  lump 
coal  to  meet  the  requirements  for  do- 
mestic consumption,  resulting  in  the 
production  of  a larger  amount  of  fine 
coal,  much  of  which,  until  quite  recently 
has  been  considered  waste  output,  and 
which  is  still  sold  at  prices  far  below 
the  cost  of  production.  A considerable 
percentage  of  dust  and  culm  is  made, 
for  which  no  market  has  yet  been  se- 
cured. The  general  conditions  and 
prolems  affecting  the  present  marketing 
of  anthracite  coal  are  treated  in  an- 
other portion  of  this  report,  and  need 
not  be  considered  in  detail  here.  What 
is  of  some  importance,  however,  in 
connection  with  the  discussion  of  the 
past  production  is  a consideration  of 
what  is  to  be  expected  in  the  future  in 
the  way  of  production  and  the  probable 
duration  of  the  anthracite  coal  supply. 
The  original  deposits  of  the  anthracite 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


273 


(Table  No.  1.) 


ANNUAL  SHIPMENTS  OP  ANTHRACITE  COAL  PROM  THE  SCHUYLKILL, 
LEHIGH,  AND  WYOMING  REGIONS  FROM  1820  TO  1901,  INCLUSIVE. 


Schuylkill 

Quantity. 
Long  tons. 

region. 

Per 

cent. 

Lehigh  region. 

Per 

Quantity,  cent. 
Long  tons. 

365  

Wyoming  region. 

Per 

Quantity.  cent. 

Long  tons. 

Total. 

Quantity. 
Long  tons. 

365 

1,073 

2,240 

1,073 

1822 

1,480 

39.79 

60.21 

3,720 

6,951 

11,108 

34,893 

1823 

1,128 

16.23 

5,823 

83.77 

1824 

1,567 

14.10 

5,941 

85.90 

1825 

6,500 

18.60 

28,398 

81.40 

1826 

16,767 

3*.  90 

31,280 

65.10 

48,047 

1827 

31,360 

49.44 

32,074 

50.56 

63,434 

1828 

47.2S4 

61.00 

30,232 

39.00 

6.25 

77,516 

1829 

79,973 

71.35 

25,110 

22.40 

7,000 

112,083 

1830 

89,984 

51.50 

41,750 

23.90 

43,OUO 

24.60 

1/4,  <31 

1831 

81,854 

46.29 

40,966 

23.17 

54,000 

30.54 

l/b,82Q 

1832. a... 

209,271 

57.61 

70,000 

19.27 

84,000 

23.12 

363,2 <1 

1S33 ..... 

252,971 

51.87 

123,001 

25.22 

111,777 

22.91 

487.749 

1834 

226,692 

60.19 

106,244 

28.21 

43,700 

11.60 

376,636 

1835 

339,508 

60.54 

131,250 

23.41 

80,000 

16.05 

560, ioS 

1836 

432,045 

63.16 

148,211 

21.66 

103,861 

15.18 

684.117 

1837 

530,152 

60.98 

223.902 

25.75 

115,387 

13.27 

869,441 

1838 

446,875 

60.49 

213.615 

28.92 

78,207 

10.59 

738,697 

1839 

475,077 

58.05 

221,025 

27.01 

122,300 

14.94 

818,408 

1840 

490,596 

56.75 

225,313 

26.07 

148,470 

17.18 

864,379 

1841 

624,466 

65.07 

143,037 

14.90 

192,270 

20.03 

959,773 

1842 

. 583,273 

52.62 

272,540 

24.59 

252,599 

22.79 

1,108,412 

1843 

710,200 

56.21 

267,793 

21.19 

285.605 

22.60 

1,263,598 

1844 

887,937 

54.45 

377,002 

23.12 

365,911 

22.43 

1,630,850 

1845 

. 1.131,724 

56.22 

429,453 

21.33 

451,836 

22.45 

2,013,013 

1846 

. 1, SOS, 500 

55.82 

517,116 

22.07 

518,389 

22.11 

2,344,005 

1847 

. 1,665,735 

57.79 

633,507 

21.98 

583.067 

20.23 

2,882,309 

1S48 

. 1,733,721 

56.12 

670.321 

21.70 

685,196 

22.18 

3,089,238 

1849 

. 1,728,500 

53.30 

781,556 

24.10 

732,910 

22.60 

3,242,906 

1850..  .. 

. 1,840,620 

54.  SO 

690,456 

20.56 

827,823 

24.64 

3,358,899 

1851 

. 2,328,525 

52.34 

964,224 

21.68 

1,156,167 

25.98 

4,448,916 

1852 

. 2,636.835 

52.81 

1,072,136 

21.47 

1,284,500 

25.72 

4,993,471 

1853 

. 2,665,110 

51.30 

1,054,309 

20.29 

1,475,732 

28.41 

5,195,151 

1854 

. 3,191,670 

53.14 

1,207,186 

20.13 

1,603,478 

26.73 

6,002,334 

1855 

. 3,552,943 

53.77 

1,284,113 

19.43 

1,771,511 

26.80 

6,608,567 

1856 

. 3,603,029 

52.91 

1,351,970 

19.52 

1.972,581 

28.47 

6,927,580 

1857 

. 3,373,797 

50.77 

1,318,451 

19.84 

1,952,603 

29.39 

6,644,941 

1858 

. 3,273,245 

47.86 

1,380,030 

20.18 

2,186,094 

31.96 

6,839,369 

1859 

. 3,448,708 

44.16 

1.628,311 

20.86 

2,731,236 

34.98 

7,808,255 

1850 

. 3.749,632 

44.04 

1,821,674 

21.40 

2,941,817 

34.56 

8.513,123 

1861 

. 3,160,747 

39.74 

1,738,377 

21.85 

3,055,140 

38.41 

7,954,264 

1862 

. 3,372,583 

42.86 

1,351,054 

17.17 

3,145,770 

39.97 

7,869,407 

1863 

. 3,911,683 

40.90 

1,894,713 

19.80 

3,759,610 

39.30 

9,566,006 

1864 

. . 4,161,970 

40.89 

2,054,669 

20.19 

3,960,836 

38.92 

10,177,475 

1865 

. . 4,356.959 

45.14 

2,040.913 

21.14 

3,254,519 

33.72 

9,652,391 

1866 

. . 5,787,902 

45.56 

2,179,364 

17.15 

4,736,616 

37.29 

12,703,882 

1867 

..  5,161,071 

39.74 

2,502,054 

19.27 

5,325,000 

40.99 

12,988,725 

1868 

. . 5 330,737 

38.52 

2,502,582 

18.13 

5,968,146 

43.25 

13,801,465 

1869 

. . 5,775,138 

41.66 

1,949,673 

14.06 

6,141,369 

44.28 

13.866,180 

1870 

. . 4,968,157 

30.70 

3,239,374 

20.02 

7.974,660 

49.28 

16,182,191 

1871 

..  6,552.772 

41.74 

2,235,707 

14.24 

6,911,242 

44.02 

15.699,721 

1872. . . . 

. . 6,694,890 

34.03 

3.873,339 

19.70 

9,101,549 

46.27 

19,669,778 

1873.... 

. . 7,212,601 

33.97 

3,705,596 

17.46 

10,309,755 

48.57 

21,227,952 

1874.... 

..  6,866,877 

34.09 

3,773,836 

18.73 

9,504,408 

47.18 

20,145,121 

1875.... 

..  6,281,712 

31.87 

2,834,605 

14.38 

10,596,155 

53.75 

19,712,472 

1876.... 

..  6,221,934 

33.63 

3,854,919 

20.84 

S,  424, 158 

45.53 

18,501,011 

1877.... 

. . 8,195,042 

39.35 

4,332,760 

20.80 

8,300,377 

39.85 

20,828,179 

1878.... 

. . 6,282,226 

35.68 

3,237,449 

18.40 

8,085.587 

45.92 

17,605,262 

1879.... 

. . 8,960,829 

34.28 

4,595,567 

17.58 

12,586,293 

48.14 

26,142,689 

1880. . . . 

. . 7,554,742 

32.23 

4.463.221 

19.05 

11,419,279 

48.72 

23,437,212 

1881.... 

. . 9,253,958 

32.46 

5,294,676 

18.58 

13,951,383 

48.96 

28,500.017 

1882. . . . 

. . 9,459,288 

32.48 

5,689,437 

19.54 

13.971,371 

47.98 

29,120,096 

1883.... 

. . 10,074,726 

31.69 

6,113.809 

19.23 

15,604.492 

49.08 

31,793,027 

1884.... 

. . 9,478,314 

30.85 

5,562,226 

18.11 

al5,677,753 

51.04 

30,718,293 

1885.... 

30.01 

5,898,634 

18.65 

al6,236,470 

51.34 

31,623,530 

18S6. . . . 

..  9,381,407 

29.19 

5.723.129 

17.89 

al7.031,826 

52.82 

32,136,362 

1887. . . . 

..  10.609,028 

30.63 

4,347,061 

12.55 

al9,684,929 

56.82 

34,641,018 

1888.... 

..  10.654,116 

27,93 

5,639,236 

14.78 

a21,852,366 

57.29 

38,145,718 

1889.... 

..  10,486,185 

29.28 

6.294,073 

17.57 

al9,036.835 

53.15 

35,817,093 

1890.... 

..  10.867,822 

29.68 

6,329.658 

17.28 

al9, 417,979 

53.04 

36,615,459 

1891.... 

..  12,741,258 

31.50 

6,381,838 

15.78 

21,325,240 

52.72 

40,448,336 

1892.... 

..  12.626,784 

30.14 

6,451,076 

15.40 

22,815,480 

54.46 

41,893,340 

1893.... 

..  12,357,444 

28.68 

6,892,352 

15.-99 

23,839,741 

55.33 

43,089.537 

1894.... 

..  12.035,005 

29.08 

6,705,434 

16.20 

22,650,761 

54.72 

41,391.200 

1895.... 

. . 14,269,932 

30.68 

7,298,124 

15.69 

24,943,421 

56.63 

46.511.477 

1896.... 

. . 13,097,571 

30.34 

6,490,441 

15.03 

23,589,473 

54.63 

43,177,485 

1897.... 

. . 12,181,061 

29.26 

6,249,540 

15.00 

23,207,263 

55.74 

41,637,864 

1898.... 

..  12.078.875 

28.83 

6,253,109 

14.92 

23,567,767 

56.25 

41.899,751 

1899.... 

. . 14,199,009 

29.79 

6,887,909 

14.45 

26,57S,286 

55.76 

47,665,204 

1900. . . . 

. . 13,502,732 

29.94 

6,918,627 

15.33 

24,686,125 

54.73 

45.107. 4S4 

1901 . . . . 

..  16,019,591 

29.92 

7,211,974 

13.45 

30,337,036 

56.63 

53,568,601 

Total..  409,472,958 

33.41 

208,568,818 

17.02 

607,539,493 

49.57 

1,225,581,269 

a— Includes  Loyalsock  field. 


coal  field  have  been  ascertained  with  a 
reasonable  degree  of  accuracy. 
According  to  the  estimates  of  the 


Pennsylvania  geological  survey,  the 
amount  of  workable  anthracite  coal 
originally  in  the  ground  was  19,500,000,- 


000  tons.  The  production  to  the  close  of 
1901,  as  previously  stated,  amounted  to 
1,350,000,000  long  tons,  which  would  indi- 
cate that  there  remained  still  available 
a total  of  18,150,000,000  tons.  Unfortun- 
ately, however,  for  every  ton  of  coal 
mined  and  marketed  one  and  one-half 
tons,  approximately,  are  either  wasted 
or  left  in  the  ground  as  pillars  for  the 
protection  of  the  workings,  so  that  the 
actual  yield  of  the  beds  is  only  about 
forty  per  cent,  of  the  contents.  Upon 
this  basis  the  exhaustion  to  date  has 
amounted  to  3,375,000,000  tons.  Deduct- 
ing this  from  the  original  deposits, 
the  amount  of  anthracite  remaining  in 
the  ground  at  the  close  of  1901  is  found 
to  be,  approximately,  16,125,000,000.  Upon 
the  basis  of  forty  per  cent,  recovery, 
this  would  yield  6,450,000,000  long  tons. 
The  total  of  production  in  1901  was  60,- 
242,560  long  tons.  If  this  rate  of  produc- 
tion were  to  continue  steadily,  the  fields 
would  become  exhausted  in  just  about 
one  hundred  years. 

Mr.  William  Griffith,  in  a series  of 
articles  contributed  to  the  Bond  Record 
in  1896,  considers  that  the  estimates 
upon  which  the  foregoing  computa- 
tions have  been  made  were  too  liberal. 
His  estimate  of  the  amount  of  minable 
coal  remaining  at  the  close  of  1895  was 

5.073.786.750  tons.  Mr.  Griffith’s  estimate 
includes  all  workable  coal  in  the  north- 
ern field,  having  beds  4 feet  thick  and 
yielding  3 feet  of  clean  coal.  In  the 
other  fields  it  includes  seams  3 feet  in 
thickness,  capable  of  yielding  2%  feet 
of  clean  coal.  It  excludes  the  culm 
piles,  mine  pillars,  etc.  The  acreage 
of  each  bed  is  multiplied  by  the  thick- 
ness of  the  seams  in  feet  and  thus 
reduced  to  foot-acres.  Each  foot-acre 
was  estimated  to  produce  650  tons  of 
coal,  and  on  the  first  of  January,  1896, 
the  unworked  areas  estimated  to  con- 
tain 7,805,826  foot-acres,  or  5,073,786,750 
tons. 

In  the  six  years  from  1896  to  1901, 
inclusive,  the  production  has  been  ap- 
proximately, 308,570,000  tons,  which 
would  leave  still  available  for  mining 

4.765.216.750  tons.  This  suuply,  at  the 
rate  of  production  in  1901,  would  last 
a little  less  than  eighty  years.  But  as 
indicating  how  susceptible  to  error  are 
human  predictions,  it  is  well  to  state 
that  in  his  carefully  prepared  state- 
ment, published  in  1896,  Mr.  Griffith 
assumes  the  limit  of  annual  produc- 
tion would  be  reached  in  1906  and  would 
amount  in  that  year  to  60,000.000  tons. 

This  amount  of  production  was  reach- 
ed in  1901,  in  just  half  the  time  predict- 
ed Mr.  Griffith,  and  the  production  of 
January,  1903,  as  recently  reported, 
shows  that  the  anthracite  mines  are 
capable  of  producing  at  a rate  of  72,- 
000,000  tons  annually  in  their  present 
state  of  development.  It  is  not  to  be 
supposed,  however,  that  the  annual 
rate  of  anthracite  production  will  con- 
tinue practically  uniform  until  the 
mines  are  exhausted  and  then  suddenly 
cease.  Portions  of  the  fields  have  al- 
ready been  worked  out,  others  are 
rapidly  approaching  total  exhaustion, 
while  others  at  the  present  rate  of  pro- 
duction will,  it  is  calculated,  last  from 
seven  hundred  to  eight  hundred  years. 
If  we  can  assume  the  annual  produc- 
tion will  have  reached  its  maximum 
limit  at  between  60,000.000  and  75.000.000 
tons,  and  that  the  production  will  then 
fall  off  gradually  as  it  increased,  we 
may  expect  anthracite  mining  to  con- 
tinue for  a period  of  from  two  hundred 
to  two  hundred  and  fifty  years. 


274 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


This  estimate  is  based  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  the  available  coal  will 
remain  at  about  forty  per  cent,  of  the 
reserves.  How  much  this  may  be  in- 
creased by  better  mining-  methods  and 
the  utilization  of  former  waste  material, 
it  is  impossible  to  say.  Already  a large 
amount  of  fuel  is  being  recovered  from 
the  old  culm  banks,  and  it  seems  safe 
to  predict  that  the  coal  saved  will,  in 
the  near  future,  equal  fifty  per  cent,  of 
the  contents  of  the  fields  worked.  How- 
ever we  may  make  our  estimates  of  fu- 
ture production,  it  is  apparent  that  the 
maximum  output  has  been  almost  if 
not  quite  reached.  The  production 
henceforth  will  be  from  lower  levels  and 
thinner  seams  than  those  previously 
worked.  This  will  necessitate  greater 
expense  in  mining  and,  consequently, 
higher  prices  for  the  fuel.  With  higher 
prices  will  necessarily  follow  more  econ- 
omy in  consumption,  greater  restriction 
of  the  market  and  the  increased  com- 
petition of  other  fuels.  All  conditions 
seem  to  combine  for  the  conservation 
of  the  supply  of  anthracite  coal. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  to  what  an 
extent  the  production  is  now  controlled 
by  the  large  corporations  engaged  in  the 
business.  Mr.  Griffith,  in  his  contri- 
bution to  the  Bond  Record,  states  that 
the  railroads  either  own  or  control  96.29 
per  cent,  of  the  anthracite  deposits, 
nearly  91  per  cen't  being  actually  owned 
by  the  transportation  companies. 

MARKET  CONDITIONS. 

The  endeavor  to  control  this  natural 
monopoly,  has  led  many  to  miscalculate 
the  anticipated  increase  in  value  of  an- 
thracite coal,  due  to  said  increase  being 
more  gradual  than  they  had  thought, 
causing  in  the  past  undue  competition, 
unwarranted  development  of  the  mines, 
and  financial  disaster  to  many  of  the 
interests  participating  'in  this  competi- 
tion, so  that  the  business  has  been  sub- 
ject to  violent  fluctuations.  The  rivalry 
between  railroads,  resulting  in  the  con- 
struction of  lines  into  the  region,  with 
the  idea  of  securing  a portion  of  this 
attractive  tonnage,  has  also  contributed 
to  the  unsettled  manner  of  conducting 
the  business. 

These  causes  have  led  to  the  opening 
of  new  mines  and  the  production  of  coal 
beyond  the  market  demand.  This  seems 
to  have  been  particularly  the  case  dur- 
ing the  six  years  from  1893  to  1899.  The 
result  of  this  increased  capacity  to  pro- 
duce was  detrimental  to  all  interests  en- 
gaged in  the  business,  and  was  felt  es- 
pecially by  the  mine  workers,  who  could 
be  given  employment  only  from  169  to 
175  days  during  the  year.  The  gradual 
concentration  of  anthracite  mining 
properties  in  the  hands  of  fewer  corpor- 
ations, and  the  gradual  increase  In  con- 
sumption of  the  product,  have  contrib- 
uted to  secure  more  uniform  conditions 
in  mining  and  the  management  of  the 
business. 

The  consumption  of  anthracite  coal, 
especially  of  the  “domestic”  sizes,  is 
much  larger  during  the  winter  months 
than  during  the  remainder  of  the  year, 
and  while  the  mining  operations  were 
conducted  by  individual  operators  and 
small  corporations,  with  limited  capital, 
the  mining  was  more  active  during  the 
fall  and  winter  months,  the  output  being 
limited  during  the  spring  and  summer 
months,  on  account  of  inability  to  pro- 
vide storage  plants  at  the  far  distant 
points  of  consumption  to  which  coal 
could  be  transported  by  water  while 
navigation  was  open. 


Anthracite  is  prepared  in  nine  sizes, 
for  which  there  are  different  uses. 
“Lump”  coal  is  taken  as  it  comes  out  of 
the  mine,  and  it  is  marketed  for  use 
either  in  iron  furnaces  or  locomotives. 
The  demand  for  this  size  is  limited,  and 
the  remainder  of  the  coal  is  broken  by 
rolls  and  screened  into  sizes  known  as 
“grate,”  “egg,”  “stove,”  “chestnut,” 
“pea,”  and  “No.  1,”  “No.  2,”  and  “No. 
3 buckwheat.” 

“Grate”  is  used  in  house  furnaces  and 
some  of  it  for  steam  purposes,  but  it  is 
known  as  one  of  the  “domestic”  sizes. 

“Egg”  is  used  principally  for  domes- 
tic purposes  in  furnaces. 

“Stove”  and  “chestnut”  are  used  en- 
tirely for  domestic  purposes  in  stoves, 
furnaces,  and  ranges. 

“Pea”  is  used  to  a small  extent  for 
domestic  purposes,  but  mostly  for  steam. 

“Buckwheat  No.  1,”  “No.  2,”  and  “No. 
3”  are  the  “small  sizes,”  and  are  used 
entirely  for  steam  purposes,  coming  di- 
rectly in  competition  with  bituminous 
coal. 

The  sizes  above  “pea”  are  known  as 
“domestic,”  and  bring  higher  prices 
than  the  so-called  “steam”  sizes.  In 
fact,  were  it  not  for  the  ability  to  ob- 
tain higher  prices  for  these  “domestic” 
sizes  the  business  could  not  be  profit- 
ably conducted,  as  the  “steam”  sizes 
are  sold  below  the  average  cost  of  pro- 
duction, “buckwheat  No.  3”  realizing 
about  30  cents  per  ton  at  the  mine  to 
the  operator,  “buckwheat  No.  2”  about 
40  cents  per  ton,  “buckwheat  No.  1” 
about  85  cents  per  ton,  and  “pea”  coal 
about  $1.30. 

The  total  cost  of  all  sizes  for  the  min- 
ing and  preparing  of  the  coal  at  the 
mine,  to  some  of  the  large  companies, 
is  about  $2  per  ton,  while  a considerable 
portion  of  the  product  is  sold  and  de- 
livered in  New  York  harbor  for  less 
than  that  amount,  so  that  the  prices 
realized  at  the  mine  for  about  forty  per 
cent,  of  the  product  averages  not  over 
$1  per  ton.  This  loss  on  the  smaller 
size,  if  the  business  is  to  be  profitable, 
must  be  recovered  from  the  “domestic” 
sizes,  which  are  about  sixty  per  cent,  of 
the  product,  so  that  in  speaking  of  the 
cost,  which  is  based  on  the  total  of  all 
sizes,  one  must  bear  in  mind  the  above 
facts  in  comparing  that  cost  with  the 
prices  obtained  by  the  operators  for  the 
“domestic”  sizes. 

As  shown  by  the  figures  prepared  by 
Mr.  William  W.  Ruley,  the  total  amount 
of  anthracite  coal  transported  to  mar- 
ket during  the  year  1901  was  53,568.601 
long  tons.  The  geographical  distribution 
of  this  tonnage  was  as  follows: 

GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OP 


ANTHRACITE  COAL  MARKETED  IN 
1901. 


Long 

Per 

tons. 

cent. 

Pennsylvania,  New  Yor 

•k 

and  New  Jersey  

35.234.059 

65.77 

New  England  states  

c’. 199. 940 

15.31 

Western  states  

5,963,035 

11.13 

Southern  states  

2,142,744 

4.00 

Pacific  coast  

20.000 

.04 

Dominion  of  Canada  

1.933.2S3 

3.61 

Foreign  ports  

75,540 

.14 

Total  

100.00 

The  same  authority 

estimates 

the 

consumption  of  anthracite  coal  along 
the  eastern  seaboard,  north  of  and  in- 
cluding Philadelphia,  during  1901,  as 


follows: 

Long  tons. 

Philadelphia  4.225,000 

New  Jersey  coast  1,000,000 

New  York  city,  Brooklyn,  Long 
Island  and  Staten  Island 9,000,000 


Miscellaneous  coast  points — Con- 
necticut   1,000,000 

Miscellaneous  coast  points— 

Rhode  Island  600,000 

Boston  2,000,000 

Miscellaneous  coast  points — Mas- 
sachusetts   500.000 

Miscellaneous  coast  points — New 

Hampshire  250.000 

Miscellaneous  coast  points — Maine  400,000 


Total  18.975,000 

This  tonnage  originates  along  the 
lines  of,  and  is  transported  to  market 
on,  the  following  railroads:  Philadel- 

phia and  Reading;  Central  Railroad  of 
New  Jersey;  Lehigh  Valley;  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western;  Delaware 
and  Hudson  company;  Erie;  New  York, 
Susquehanna  and  Western;  New  York, 
Ontario  and  Western;  Pennsylvania; 
and  Delaware,  Susquehanna  and  Schuyl- 
kill. 

During  the  past  ten  years  there  has 
been  considerable  change  in  the  demand 
for  coal  of  certain  sizes,  as  shown  by 
the  following  statement  of  tonnage 
shipped  in  1892,  as  compared  with  1901: 
(See  Table  No.  2 ) 


While  the  total  shipments  of  anthra- 
cite in  1901  were  53,56S,601  long  tons,  or 
about  11,500,000  tons  more  than  in  1892, 
only  about  4,000.000  tons  of  this  increase 
was  in  the  sizes  above  "pea”  coal.  Of 
the  total  shipments  of  anthracite  dur- 
ing the  year  1901,  2,567,335  tons  were  not 
fresh-mined  coal,  but  were  taken  from 
the  old  waste  banks  and  prepared  for 
market  through  washeries  constructed 
for  that  purpose,  whereas  in  1892  only 
90,495  tons  were  shipped  from  washeries. 

The  average  f.  o.  b.  prices  per  ton  re- 
ceived for  the  different  sizes  sold  at 
New  York  harbor  during  the  year  1901, 
for  the  Wyoming  region,  as  reported  by 
Mr.  Ruley,  were: 

Grate  $3.4472 

Egg  3.9uS 

Stove  4.3211 

Chestnut  4.3230 

Pea  2.5769 

Buckwheat  No.  1 2.1020 

Buckwheat  No.  2 1.43S3 

Buckwheat  No.  3 1.1575 

The  introduction  of  improved  methods 
for  burning  the  small  sizes  may  gradu- 
ally enable  the  operator  to  get  better 
prices  for  them,  but  the  price  must  al- 
ways be  controlled  or  affected  by  the 
competition  of  bituminous  coal.  In  pre- 
paring the  coal  it  is  evident  that  it  is 
to  the  interest  of  the  operator  to  make 
as  large  a percentage  of  the  “domestic” 
sizes  as  practicable,  but  it  is  impossible 
to  prevent  a large  amount  of  waste  by 
breakage  in  preparation;  some  of  this, 
however,  is  saved  in  small  sizes,  which 
must  be  marketed  at  the  best  price  ob- 


tainable. 

The  demand  for  the  different  sizes  is 
not  uniform  throughout  the  year,  but 
all  sizes  must  be  produced  if  any  size 
is  wanted;  consequently  storage  facil- 
ities for  §izes  not  needed  immediately 
must  be  provided,  causing  another  in- 
vestment and  source  of  expense  in 
storing  and  taking  up  again.  In  order 
to  operate  the  mines  more  steadily 
throughout  the  year  and  to  provide  for 
the  increased  consumption  without 
opening  additional  mines,  it  became 
necessary  for  the  larger  companies  en- 
gaged in  the  business  to  provide  stor- 
age facilities  for  many  of  the  sizes  that 
are  not  generally  used  through  the 
spring  and  summer  months.  Anthra- 
cite being  used  over  a large  section  of 
the  country,  these  storage  plants  have 
been  gradually  Installed  at  different 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


O' 


75 


(Table  No.  2.) 


QUANTITY  OP  COAL  OP  VARIOUS  SIZES  SHIPPED  IN  1892  AND  1901. 


Lump. 
Grate. . 


Size. 


Stove  

Chestnut  

Prepared  sizes  

Pea  

Buckwheat  No.  1 

Smaller  than  buckwheat  No.  1. 
Small  sizes  

Total  


1892.- 

Long 

Per 

1901. 

Long 

Per 

tons. 

cent. 

tons. 

cent. 

3,907,296 

9.3 

2,187,553 

4.1 

4,692,137 

11.2 

4,423,584 

8.3 

6,078,277 

14.5 

6,989,330 

13.1 

9,681,988 

23.1 

10,561,957 

19.7 

7,508,580 

17.9 

10,250,550 

19.1 

27,960,982 

66.7 

32,225,421 

60.2 

5,258,838 

12.6 

7,555,948 

14.1 

3,971,025 

9.5 

7.894,613 

14.7 

795,179 

1.9 

3,705,066 

6.9 

10,025,042 

24.0 

19.155,627 

35.7 

41,893,320 

100.0 

53,568,601 

100.0 

(Table  No.  3.) 

FATAL  ACCIDENTS  PER  1,000  EMPLO  YES  IN  COAL  MINES  IN  THE  UNIT- 
ED STATES  AND  IN  FOREIGN  COUNTRIES  FROM  1891  TO  1900. 


1891 

1992 

1893 

1894 

1895 

1896 

1897 

1898 

1899 

1900 

Austria 

a2.54 

ai.18 

ai.n 

35.13 

a [,96 

ai.20 

ao.95 

ao  90 

a 1.08 

aO.90 

bl.05 

bi.40 

C4-45 

ei.67 

t>2.84 

bi.12 

bi  62 

bi  49 

bi.14 

bi.03 

bi.40 

b.97 

British  Columbia 

C2.24 

C5. 12 

CI.25 

C3-42 

d3.27 

d2.49 

d2  46 

d2.94 

d4-i5 

France  

C-95 

e-93 

e.85 

ei.I5 

d.30 

d.07 

ei.07 

ei-35 

d.42 

f2.8o 

f2-3° 
d gi.49 

f2.6o 

f2  12 

f2-44 

f 2 57 

f 2. 27 

f 2 97 

d2.2I 

d2.i9 

Great  Britain 

d gi.50 

d gi-55 

d gi.6o 

di.48 

di.48 

di.32 

di.28 

dl.24 

di.29 

d ’.64 

d.67 

di.51 

dh  28 

d h.68 

di.32 

d h.69 

d.77 

di.ii 

U2.54 

di.6o 

d2  38 

d-95 

d2.09 

d3-i6 

d2.78 

d34  °7 

d2.<9 

d.50 

di-39 

di.63 

C22.28 

CI.55 
94  49 
11.69 
C2.50 

C-34 

C2.4I 

di.03 

di.66 

di.35 

d2.8; 

d3-39 

d3-32 

Colorado  

C4.40 

06.31 

C3.O6 

i2.2X 

C3.0S 

12  35 

cio  07 

04.99 

03-23 

05.60 

d3-9? 

il.82 

il-95 

12.33 

i2.04 

i2. 14 

i2  27 

d2.39 

C.72 

C2.96 

C2  92 

03-94 

C2.O0 

C2. 6y 

C2.07 

di.82 

C3.95 

CI.64 

03.26 

06.34 

C4.82 

06.24 

d8.84 

Iowa 

C2.08 

02.58 

C2.77 

01.85 

CI.82 

C2.62 

02.45 

03-38 

02.49 

d'2.22 

C2.08 

ci.52 

C2. 58 

CI  II 

ci.36 

C.7I 

ci-95 

ci.57 

d2.6o 

C2-49 

ci.04 

ci. 41 
ci.23 

CI.25 

CI  .02 

C.79 

ci-5S 

c.67 

c.83 

di-59 

CI.69 
02  49 

C2.30 

ci  58 

ci.17 

c.89 

ci.08 

Missouri 

C2  62 

02.48 

C2.70 

ci.88 

C2.4I 

ci.22 

CI.22 

CI.8O 

di.28 

C16.84 

04-87 

05  13 

03-71 

C7.9O 

d7-44 

Ohio 

ci.83 

j3-°8 

13  18 

k3-95 

ci.56 

CI.  II 

CI-43 

ct.78 

ci-44 

ci-39 

ci-77 

C2.03 

d2.46 

Pennsylvania  : 

Anthracite 

13-05 
ji  69 
k2.4i 

33.25 

33-15 

ji-44 

13-54 

ji.83 

33-35 

32.14 

32-84 

j2.88 

32.92 

32.82 

Bituminous 

j 1.64 

ji-72 

32.26 

3282 

j 2 43 

Tennessee 

k2.0I 

k2.i6 

107.23 

k3-37 

ki.42 

k2.43 

d2  60 

k 1.09 

Utah  . „ . 

3-47 

03.18 

C4.20 

CI.49 

CI4.79 

CI.49 

CI2.38 

04  35 

C4-I7 

04.38 

d 138.96 

C18.58 

02.76 

02.98 

C2.48 

C2.70 

C28  OO 

d7-79 

West  Virginia 

C3.16 

02.98 

C3 -97 

C2.68 

02.89 

03.86 

03-55 

d5  °3 

a Osterr  Stat.  Handbuch. 

b Belgium:  Annuaire  Statistique  de  la  Belgique,  Tome  XXIV,  1893. 

c Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  No.  32. 
d Great  Britain:  Mines  and  Quarries,  General  Reports. 

e Prance:  Ministere  des  Travaux  Publics;  Stat.  de  LYndustrie  Minerale,  1891, 

1892 

f Bericht  uber  die  Verwaltung  der  Kappschaf ts-Berufsgennossenschaft,  for 
the  years  1891  to  1898. 

g All  mines  under  the  coal  mines  regulation  act. 
h List  of  accidents  incomplete, 
i Illinois;  20th  Coal  Report,  1901. 

j Pennsylvania:  Report  of  the  bureau  of  mines,  1901. 

k Tennessee:  Annual  report  of  the  bureau  of  labor,  statistics,  and  mines,  1892. 

1893  and  1900. 


points.  These  are  used  for  storing  coal 
during  the  spring  and  summer  months, 
leaving  the  nearby  points  to  be  sup- 
plied with  fresh-mined  coal  during  the 
winter.  These  storage  plants,  however, 
do  not  take  care  of  all  the  coal  that 
could  be  mined,  and  the  method  has 
been  adopted,  and  carried  out  fairly 
well  during  the  past  two  years,  of  giv- 
ing discounts  to  consumers  who  buy 
their  coal  during  the  spring  and  early 
summer  months.  This  system  has 
worked  with  general  satisfaction,  as  it 
enables  the  companies  to  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  consumers’  bins  for  stor- 
age purposes. 

There  has  been  a decided  improve- 
ment in  the  past  three  years  in  the  con- 
ditions controlling  the  anthracite  busi- 
ness; among  others,  the  general  pros- 
perity of  the  country  has  led  to  an  in- 
creased consumption  of  anthracite  more 
nearly  approaching  the  capacity  to  pro- 


duce, consequently  removing  to  a great 
extent  the  strong  competition  on  the 
part  of  the  operators.  The  strike  of  1900 
limited  the  production  of  that  year, 
causing  higher  prices  than  had  .been 
obtained  for  some  years  previous.  The 
operators  were  enabled  to  secure  about 
the  same  prices  during  the  period  be- 
tween the  1900  strike  and  the  long  strike 
of  1902,  which  again  reduced  the  ship- 
ments of  coal  to  the  extent  of  over  22,- 
000,000  tons,  so  that  the  present  prices 
which  the  operators  are  able  to  obtain 
are  due  to  this  unusual  reduction  of 
output. 

Anthracite,  though  regarded  largely 
as  a necessity,  is  not  free  from  com- 
petition, and  unreasonably  high  prices 
limit  the  use  of  it.  As  has  been  said, 
the  price  of  the  “steam”  sizes,  which 
are  about  forty  per  cent,  of  the  total 
production,  is  influenced  by  and  con- 
trolled through  the  comeptition  of  bitu- 


minous coal.  The  “domestic”  sizes,  at 
reasonable  prices,  are  always  certain  of 
a fair  market,  but  when  the  price  be- 
comes abnormally  high,  the  economy 
practiced  in  its  use  and  the  competition 
of  gas  and  oil  ranges  and  stoves  are 
directly  felt  and  limit  consumption. 

Owing  to  its  gradual  exhaustion  and 
the  consequent  greater  expense  of  min- 
ing the  poorer  veins,  and  the  increased 
labor  cost  due  to  highei  wages,  the  ten- 
dency of  the  price  of  anthracite  coal  is 
probably  upward.  The  effect  of  higher 
prices  will  undoubtedly  be  to  limit  con- 
sumption. 

We  were  impressed  with  many  im- 
portant features  regarding  the  anthra- 
cite industry  that  are  not  generally 
known,  and  particularly  with  the  capi- 
tal required  in  the  development  of  the 
mines  and  the  production  of  the  coal, 
as  well  as  with  the  great  waste  occur- 
ring and  cost  of  handling  the  output 
under  present  conditions  in  the  prepar- 
ation of  the  marketable  sizes.  Sinking 
shafts,  fitting  them  with  hoisting  ma- 
chinery, driving  gangways,  opening 
chambers,  pumping  plants,  which  must 
be  run  continuously,  ventilating  ma- 
chinery, that  the  men  may  work  with 
safety  and  a reasonable  degree  of  com- 
fort, grading  roads,  planes,  and  slopes, 
cost  of  mules  and  cars,  the  installation 
of  the  machinery  required  in  hauling 
the  product  to  the  breaker,  where  the 
coal  is  finally  prepared  for  market — 
necessitate  a large  investment  of  capi- 
tal. The  breakers  also,  equipped  with 
the  necessary  machinery,  are  expensive. 
They  are  usually  built  of  wood  and  re- 
quire constant  repairs.  The  cost  of 
opening  a colliery,  with  its  equipment, 
varies  from  $200,000  to  $750,000,  which 
must  be  returned  by  the  time  the  coal 
is  exhausted  or  the  investment  results 
in  loss,  as  the  plants  are  worthless 
when  all  of  the  coal  has  been  mined. 

In  the  study  of  anthracite  conditions, 
one  can  not  but  be  struck  by  the 
thought  that  a commodity  so  valuable 
and  indispensable,  lying  within  a small 
area,  limited  in  quantity,  should  not  be 
wastefully  mined,  and  that  the  needs 
of  future  generations  snould  be  con- 
sidered and  their  interests  conserved. 

HAZARDOUS  NATURE  OF  AN- 
THRACITE MINING. 

In  considering  the  compensation  to  be 
paid  for  any  class  of  labor,  the  danger 
to  life  and  limb  to  those  engaged 
should  be  taken  into  account.  All 
kinds  of  mining  work  involve  risk  of 
accident  considerably  in  excess  of  the 
average  in  manual  labor.  Coal  mining 
is  more  hazardous  than  any  other  class 
of  underground  work,  for  in  addition 
to  the  usual  dangers  from  falling  rock 
and  premature  blasts,  the  coal  miner 
runs  risk  of  fire,  explosion,  and  suffo- 
cation. The  temporary  shutting  off  of 
the  supply  of  air  may  place  in  jeopardy 
the  life  of  every  worker  in  a coal  mine. 
The  flame  from  a "blown-out”  shot 
may  explode  a mixture  of  gas,  or  dust 
and  air,  and  result  in  the  death  or  in- 
jury of  many  men.  The  danger  of  tap- 
ping a gas  pocket  is  always  present, 
and  constant  vigilance  is  necessary  in 
order  to  protect  the  safety  of  the  coal 
miner.  The  occupation  must  therefore 
be  classed  among  those  of  a hazardous 
nature,  the  fisheries,  certain  classes  of 
railway  employment,  and  powder 
manufacture  being  among  the  few  in 
which  the  danger  exceeds  that  of  coal 
mining. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  mining 


276 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


(Table  No.  4 ) 


FATAL  ACCIDENTS  PER  1,000  EMPLOYES  IN  AND  ABOUT  THE  ANTHRA- 
CITE COAL  MINES.  TONS  OF  COAL  MINED  FOR  EACH  FATAL  ACCI- 
DENT, FROM  1870  TO  1901,  INCLUSIVE. 


Fatal 

Number  of 

! 

acci- 

Number  of 

long  tons 

dents  per 

long  tons 

mined  for 

Fatal 

1,000  em- 

of  coal 

each  fatal 

Years. 

Employes. 

accidents. 

ployes. 

produced. 

accident. 

1870  

35,600 

211 

5.929 

12,653,575 

59,970 

1871  

37.48S 

210 

5.601 

13.868.087 

66,838 

1872  

44,475 

166 

3.709 

13,899,970 

83,734 

1873  

48,199 

224 

4.647 

18,751.358 

83,711 

1874  

53,402 

231 

4.325 

17,794.857 

77,034 

1875  

69,966 

238 

3.401 

20.895,220 

87,798 

1876  

65,357 

226 

3.458 

20,529,166 

90,837 

1877  

66,842 

199 

2.977 

21,574,154 

108,413 

1878  

63,964 

187 

2,923 

20.330.945 

108.720 

1879  

68,847 

262 

3.807 

26,725,475 

102,005 

1880  

201 

2.739 

24,977,265 

124.265 

1881  

76,021 

269 

3.538 

30,537,998 

113,524 

1882  

82,344 

292 

3.546 

31,301,278 

107,196 

1883  

90,921 

323 

3.552 

33.703,010 

104,313 

18S4  

101.398 

332 

3.274 

32,561,374 

98,076 

1885  

100,311 

315 

3.140 

33.468.911 

116.250 

1S8G  

102,878 

279 

2.624 

34.777,618 

124,650 

1887  

106,547 

319 

2.994 

37,644,023 

118,006 

1888  

117,160 

364 

3,106 

41,638,427 

114,391 

1889  

119,500 

385 

3.222 

3S.983.952 

101,257 

1890  

115,190 

378 

3.281 

40,088,356 

106.05i 

1891  

123,277 

428 

3.472 

4-1,320,950 

103,553 

1892  

128,763 

396 

3.075 

45,738,373 

115,501 

1893  

138,069 

449 

3.252 

47.219,562 

105,166 

1894  

139,544 

439 

3.146 

45,506.179 

103,659 

1893  

143, 2S8 

421 

3.636 

50.S47.102 

120.777 

1896  

150,080 

502 

3.345 

48.074,330 

95,763 

1897  

149,557 

424 

2.842 

46,917.350 

110.725 

1898  

142,546 

411 

2.877 

47,145,175 

114,706 

1899  

140,583 

461 

2.923 

54,034.224 

1.31,446 

1900  

143,726 

411 

2.851 

51.217.318 

124,616 

1901  

147,651 

513 

3.474 

59,905,951 

116.775 

(Table  No.  5.) 

TOTAL  ACCIDENTS  TO  EACH  CLASS  OF  MINE  WORKERS  IN  PENNNSYL- 


VANIA  ANTHRACITE 

COLLIERIES  DURING 

1901. 

Number  of 

Number 
killed  per 
Number  1,000  em- 

Occupations. 

employes. 

killed. 

ployed. 

Inside  foremen,  or  mine  bosses 

539 

5 

9.3 

Fire  bosses  

830 

2 

2.4 

Miners  

37,804 

224 

5.9 

Miners’  laborers  

26,268 

122 

4.6 

Drivers  and  runners  

10,895 

45 

4.1 

Door  boys  and  helpers  

3,148 

6 

1.9 

All  other  employes  

18,951 

37 

1.9 

Total  inside  

98,434 

441 

4.5 

Superintendents,  bookkeepers  and  clerks 

804 

Outside  foremen  

379 

Blacksmiths  and  carpenters  

2,331 

Engineers  and  firemen  

4,615 

5 

l.i 

Slate  pickers  

19.564 

9 

.46 

All  other  employes  

• 

21,524 

64 

2.9 

Total  outside  

49,217 

a72 

1.5 

Total  inside  and  outside  

147,651 

a513 

3.5 

a This  is  not  the  correct  total  of  the 
in  the  original  report. 

items 

shown;  the  figures  are  given 

as  shown 

( Table  No.  6 ) 

NUMBER  OF  EMPLOYES  INSIDE  AND  OUTSIDE  THE  ANTHRACITE 
MINES.  THE  NUMBER  OF  FATAL  ACCIDENTS,  AND  THE  NUMBER  OF 
FATAL  ACCIDENTS  PER  1,000  PERSONS  EMPLOYED  FOR  THE  YEARS 
1891-1901. 


Number 

Ratio  of 

Ratio  of 

of  em- 

Number 

lives  lost 

Number  of  Number 

lives  lost 

ployes 

of  fatal 

inside  per 

employes 

of  fatal  outside  per 

inside  of 

accidents 

1,000  em- 

outside  of 

accidents 

1,000  em- 

Years. 

mines. 

inside. 

ployed. 

mines. 

outside. 

ploved. 

1891  

76,569 

372 

4.S583 

46,7.39 

56 

1,1  SOS 

1892  

81,953 

361 

4.4049 

4S.212 

57 

1.1791 

1893  

86,387 

388 

4.4914 

51.6S2 

6S 

1.3002 

1894  

87.901 

36S 

4.1865 

52. OSS 

7S 

1.5181 

1895  

89,059 

354 

3.9749 

54,431 

67 

1.2327 

1896  

94,978 

430 

4.5273 

65,320 

72 

1.3015 

1897  

95,812 

372 

3.8S26 

53,745 

51 

.9006 

1898  

91,171 

360 

3.9597 

51,242 

51 

.9953 

1899  

92,223 

389 

4, 21 SO 

48,433 

72 

1.4866 

1900  

01.110 

35S 

4,2548 

49,676 

53 

1.0669 

1901  

9S.464 

441 

4,4700 

49,217 

72 

1.1600 

of  anthracite  is  more  dangerous  than  contention  is  evidently  based  upon  a 
the  mining  of  bituminous  coal.  This  comparison  of  anthracite  mining  with 


favorable  bituminous  conditions.  In 
the  accompanying  table  it  is  shown 
that  the  number  of  fatal  accidents  per 
1,000  employes  in  the  anthracite  mines 
of  Pennsylvania  in  a period  of  ten 
years  has  exceeded  those  in  the  bitu- 
minous mines  of  the  same  state,  and  of 
Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Ken- 
tucky, Maryland,  Missouri,  and  Ohio, 
while  the  bituminous  mines  of  Colorado. 
Indian  Territory,  New  Mexico,  Utah, 
West  Virginia,  and  Washington  show 
death  rates  per  1,000  considerably  in  ex- 
cess of  those  in  the  anthracite  mines. 
It  does  not  seem,  therefore,  that  the 
average  hazard  in  anthracite  mining 
is  greater  than  that  in  bituminous  coal 
mining.  The  table  in  which  these  sta- 
tistics are  presented  shows  also  the 
death  rate  per  1,000  in  a number  of  oth- 
er countries  for  the  years  for  which 
statistics  are  obtainable.  Generally 
speaking,  the  accident  death  rates  in 
the  United  States  do  not  make  a favor- 
able showing  for  this  country. 

(See  Table  No.  3.) 

The  following  table,  taken  from  the 
report  of  the  bureau  of  mines  of  the 
state  of  Pennsylvania,  shows  that  while 
the  death  rate  from  accidents  in  1901 
was  above  the  average  of  the  preceding 
fifteen  years,  the  general  tendency  has 
been  toward  greater  safety.  The  table 
covers  a period  of  thirty-two  years, 
and  shows  that  while  the  number  of 
employes  in  1901  was  four  times  the 
number  employed  in  1S70,  and  that 
while  the  production  was  in  the  latter 
year  nearly  five  times  that  of  the 
earlier,  the  number  of  fatal  accidents 
was  only  two  and  one-half  times  as 
large.  The  number  of  long  tons  of  coal 
mined  per  life  lost  in  1901  was  double 
that  of  1870.  A subsequent  table  shows 
the  statistics  of  fatalities  separated  ac- 
cording to  workers  inside  and  outside 
the  mines  from  1S91  to  1901,  inclusive: 

(See  Tables  Nos.  4,  5,  6.) 

There  are,  unfortunately,  no  annual 
statistics  of  fatalities  in  other  employ- 
ments (except  railway  service)  in  the 
LTnited  States  with  which  comparisons 
can  be  made.  The  following  compila- 
tion of  fatalities  among  railway  em- 
ployes is  taken  from  the  reports  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  Sta- 
tistics compiled  by  the  labor  depart- 
ment of  the  British  board  of  trade 
show  the  fatalities  per  1,000  employes 
engaged,  respectively,  in  mining,  quar- 
rying, factories,  railway  service,  and 
shipping.  The  last  named  only  present 
a higher  death  rate  than  that  of  an- 
thracite coal  mining  in  Pennsylvania: 

TOTAL  ACCIDENTS  PER  THOUSAND 
OF  RAII, WAY  EMPLOYES  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES. 

[Computed  from  reports  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission.] 

Total 
accidents 
per  1,001 


Year.  emploves. 

1S99  2.  SO 

1590  3.27 

1591  3.39 

1892  3.11 

1593  8.12 

1594  2.34 

1895  2.31 

1896  2.25 

1897  2.06 

1595  2.24 

1899  2.38 

1900  2.51 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


(Table  No.  7.) 

FATAL,  ACCIDENTS  AND  DEATH  RATE  PER  1,000  EMPLOYES  IN  VARI- 
OUS INDUSTRIES  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND,  1897  TO  1901. 

[From  the  Labor  Gazette,  published  monthly  by  the  labor  department  of  the  Brit- 
ish Board  of  Trade.] 


Year 

Mining. 

Quarries 
over  20  feet 
deep 

Factories 

Railway 

service. 

Shipping 

Total  for  pre- 
ceding in- 
dustries. 

Under- 

ground 

Surface. 

Num- 

ber. 

Death 
rate 
per 
1,0  0 a 

Num- 

ber. 

Death 

rate 

per 

r,ooo.  a 

Num- 

ber. 

Death 
rate 
per 
1,000.  a 

Num- 

ber. 

Death 
rate 
per 
i,ooo.  a 

Num- 

ber. 

Death 
rate 
per 
1,000.  a 

Num- 

ber. 

Death 
rate 
per 
1,000.  a 

Death 
Num-  rate 
ber.  ! per 
1,  coo.  a 

1897... 

875 

I-5I 

104  ^ 0.69 

123 

I. CO 

513 

0.13 

539 

1. 16 

164  > 

7.10 

3796 

0.71 

1898... 

806 

1-37 

135  j -88 

'34 

1. 00 

575 

•15 

52  2 

.98 

1598 

6.94 

3770 

.68 

1899... 

851 

1. 41 

121  .75 

1 17 

1. 19 

675 

■17 

55s 

1.04 

18  9 

7-93 

4158 

■75 

1900... 

931 

1-54 

119  ! 174 

127 

'•35 

802 

.20 

612 

1 15 

i8?9 

8.02 

4480 

.81 

1901... 

974 

I.46 

152  i .88 

97 

1.03 

769 

.20 

539 

1. 01 

1722 

7-31 

4 '53 

■75 

a In  most  instances  the  total  number  of 
persons  employed  in  the  industry  during 
the  year  not  being  obtainable  at  the  time 
of  the  publication  of  the  report  in  the 
Labor  Gazette,  the  latest  number  report- 
ed for  preceding  years  was  employed  in 
determining  the  death  rate  per  1,000  em- 
ployes. For  this  reason  the  death  rate 
as  computed  in  this  table  does  not  in 
many  cases  agree  with  the  one  published 
in  the  Labor  Gazette,  the  more  recent  fig- 
ures having  been  substituted  wherever 
possible. 

(See  Table  No.  7.) 


HISTORY  AND  CAUSES  OF  THE 
STRIKE  OF  1902, 


The  occasion  of  the  strike  of  1902  was 
the  demand  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America  for  an  increase  in  wages, 
a decrease  in  time,  and  the  payment  for 
coal  by  weight  wherever  practicable  and 
where  then  paid  by  car.  The  cause  lies 
deeper  than  the  occasion,  and  is  to  be 
found  in  the  desire  for  the  recognition 
by  the  operators  of  the  miners’  union. 
The  great  strike  of  1900,  which  resulted 
in  an  advance  of  ten  per  cent,  in  the 
wages  paid  to  all  classes  of  mine  work- 
ers, did  not  leave  either  miners  or  op- 
erators in  a satisfied  state  of  mind,  for 
both  agree  that  since  the  settlement  of 
1900  there  have  been  increased  sensi- 
tiveness and  irritation  in  the  mining 
districts  as  compared  with  the  previous 
twenty-five  years  or  more. 

Early  in  1901  (Feb.  15)  Mr.  Mitchell, 
the  president  of  the  United  Mi  re  Work- 
ers of  America,  approached  the  opera- 
tors with  the  following  proposition, 
sent  to  Mr.  Olyphant,  president  of  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  company: 

1 “Would  you  kindly  wire  if  your  com- 
pany will  participate  in  a joint  confer- 
ence with  anthracite  miners  during  the 
month  of  March  for  the  purpose  of 
agreeing  upon  scale  of  wages  for  period 
which  would  be  mutually  agreeable  to 
operators  and  miners?”  ■ 

Mr.  Olyphant’s  reply  was  as  follows: 
“I  understood  that  matter  of  wages 
was  satisfactorily  adjusted  last  Octo- 
ber, and  we  have  no  present  intention 
of  departing  from  the  arrangements 
then  made.  I therefore  see  no  obje<  t 
in  the  conference  which  you  suggest, 
even  if  that  method  of  procedure  were 
desirable,  which  seems  very  doubtful.” 
February  26  Mr.  Mitchell  sent  a le  - 
ter  to  Mr.  Olyphant,  in  which  he  stated 
that  his  letter  was  “for  the  purpose  of 
inviting  your  company  to  be  represent- 


ed at  a joint  conference  of  mine  work- 
ers and  mine  owners  which  has  been 
called  to  meet  at  Hazleton,  Pa.,  on 
March  15.”  March  6 Mr.  Olyphant  re- 
plied to  Mr.  Mitchell,  declining  to  join 
in  the  conference,  closing  as  follows: 

“So  far  as  concerns  conferences  with 
its  own  employes  in  any  branch  of  its 
service  regarding  questions  of  mutual 
concern,  I may  again  say  that  the  of- 
ficers of  the  company  are  and  will  be 
at  all  times  ready  and  willing  therefor.” 

In  April,  1901,  the  operators  proposed 
to  continue  the  advanced  rate  of  wages 
until  April,  1902.  February  .14,  1902,  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  in  a 
letter  dated  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  invited 
the  representatives  of  the  railroads  and 
coal  companies  operating  in  the  anthra- 
cite districts  of  Pennsylvania  to  “a 
joint  conference  of  operators  and  min- 
ers on  March  12,  at  Scranton,  Pa.,  the 
object  of  the  conference  to  be  the  for- 
mation of  a wage  scale  for  the  year  be- 
ginning April  1,  1902,  and  ending  March 
31,  1903.”  The  presidents  of  the  various 
companies  to  whom  this  letter  was  ad- 
dressed replied,  formally  declining  the 
conference. 

March  22,  1902,  Mr.  Mitchell  sent  the 
following  telegram  to  Mr.  Baer: 

“By  direction  of  miners’  convention,  I 
wire  to  ascertain  if  your  company  will 
join  other  anthracite  coal  companies  in 
conference  with  committee  represent- 
ing anthracite  mine  workers  for  pur- 
pose of  discussing  and  adjusting  griev- 
ances which  affect  all  companies  ard 
all  employes  alike.  Please  answer.” 

On  March  24  Mr.  Baer  answered  as 
follows: 

“Always  willing  to  meet  our  employes 
to  discuss  and  adjust  any  grievances. 
I had  hoped  that  my  letter  clearly  ex- 
pressed our  views.” 

The  anthracite  mine  workers,  mem- 
bers of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  held  a convention  at  Shamo- 
kin,  Pa.,  from  March  18  to  24,  1902,  dur- 
ing which  they  passed  resolutions  de- 
manding an  eight-hour  day,  the  weigh- 
ing of  coal,  and  a uniform  scale,  with 
notice  that  after  the  1st  of  April  the 
miners  would  work  only  three  days  a 
week  until  the  operators  had  come  to 
an  agreement  with  them,  and  they  ap- 
pealed to  the  Civic  Federation  to  aid 
them  in  securing  their  demands. 

In  response  to  an  invitation  from  the 
Industrial  department  of  the  Civic 
Federation,  Senator  Hanna,  the  chair- 
man of  the  Federation,  invited  cer- 


277 


tain  of  the  coal  operators,  and  es- 
pecially the  presidents  of  the  larger 
coal  companies,  to  meet  the  officers  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  and  the  Civic 
Federation  to  discuss  the  subject  of  the 
foregoing  demands.  The  coal  presi- 
dents met  the  officers  of  the  Mine 
Workers  and  the  Civic  Federation  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  where  Mr. 
Thomas,  of  the  Erie  company,  sub- 
mitted the  following  propositions, 
which  were  understood  to  be  the  basis 
of  the  conference: 

“First.  The  anthracite  companies  do 
not  undertake  in  the  slightest  manner 
to  discriminate  against  members  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  but 
they  do  insist  that  members  of  that  or- 
ganization shall  not  discriminate 
against  nor  decline  to  work  with  non- 
members of  such  association. 

“Second.  That  there  shall  be  no  de- 
terioration in  the  quantity  or  quality 
of  the  work,  and  that  there  shall  be  no 
effort  to  restrict  the  individual  exer- 
tions of  men  who,  working  by  the  ton 
or  car,  may  for  reasons  satisfactory  to 
themselves  and  their  employers  pro- 
duce such  a quantity  of  work  as  they 
may  desire. 

“Third.  By  reason  of  the  different 
conditions,  varying  not  only  with  the 
districts  but  with  the  mines  themselves, 
thus  rendering  absolutely  impossible 
anything  approaching  uniform  condi- 
tions, each  mine  must  arrange  either 
individually  or  through  its  committees 
with  the  superintendents  or  managers 
any  questions  affecting  wages  or  griev- 
ances.” 

After  discussing  at  great  length  the 
questions  relating  to  labor  in  the  an- 
thracite coal  regions,  an  adjournment 
was  taken  for  thirty  days.  At  the  ex- 
piration of  the  thirty  days  another 
meeting  was  held  with  the  Civic  Fed- 
eration, at  which  Mr.  Mitchell  and  the 
district  presidents,  together  with  a 
large  committee  of  miners,  were  pres- 
ent. Another  free  and  full  discussion 
took  place,  without  reaching  conclu- 
sions. 

At  the  suggestion  of  the  Civic  Fed- 
eration a committee  composed  of  Mr. 
Mitchell  and  the  anthracite  district 
presidents,  and  Messrs.  Thomas,  Trues- 
dale  and  Baer,  representing  the  opera- 
tors, was  appointed  to  consider  further 
the  points  at  issue  and  report  to  the 
Civic  Federation,  at  a date  to  be  fixed 
by  its  chairman.  This  committee  spent 
two  full  days  in  discussion,  but  without 
results.  The  Federation  was  not  again 
called  together.  Mr.  Mitchell,  however, 
convened  his  district  executive  commit- 
tee, and  on  May  8 he  sent  the  following 
dispatch  to  Messrs.  Thomas,  Truesdale, 
Baer,  and  Olyphant: 

“Scranton,  Pa.,  May  8,  1902. 

“Conscious  of  the  disastrous  effects 
upon  mine  workers,  mine  operatois. 
and  the  public  in  general  which  would 
result  from  a prolonged  suspension  of 
work  in  the  anthracite  coal  regions  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  with  earnest  desire 
and  hope  of  avoiding  the  impending  ca- 
lamity, the  representatives  of  the  an- 
thracite mine  workers  have  authorized 
us  to  submit  the  following  propositions: 

“First.  Inasmuch  as  the  anthracite 
mine  operators  have  proposed  to  con- 
tinue the  present  wage  scale  for  one 
year,  and  inasmuch  as  the  anthracite 
mine  workers  have  unanimously  re- 
solved to  ask  that  an  increase  of  20  per 
cent,  should  be  paid  on  present  prices 
to  all  men  performing  contract  work, 
that  eight  hours  should  constitute  a 


278 


PROCEEDINGS  OE  THE  ANTHRACITE 


day’s  labor  for  all  persons  employed  by 
the  hour,  day,  or  week,  without  any  re- 
duction in  their  present  wage  rate,  and 
that  coal  should  be  weighed  and  paid 
for  by  weight  wherever  practicable,  and 
inasmuch  as  in  our  recent  conferences 
the  anthracite  mine  workers  and  mine 
operators  have  failed  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment upon  any  of  the  questions  at  is- 
sue, we  propose  that  the  industrial 
branch  of  the  National  Civic  Federa- 
tion select  a committee  of  five  persons 
to  arbitrate,  and  decide  all  or  any  of 
the  questions  in  dispute,  the  award  of 
such  board  of  arbitration  to  be  binding 
upon  both  parties  and  effective  for  a 
period  of  one  year. 

“Second.  Should  the  above  proposi- 
tion be  unacceptable  to  you,  we  propose 
that  a committee  composed  of  Arch- 
bishop Ireland,  Bishop  Potter,  and  one 
other  person  whom  these  two  may  se- 
lect, be  authorized  to  make  an  investi- 
gation into  the  wages  and  conditions  of 
employment  existing  in  the  anthracite 
field,  and  if  they  decide  that  the  aver- 
age annual  wages  received  by  anthra- 
cite mine  workers  are  sufficient  to  en- 
able them  to  live,  maintain  and  educate 
their  families  in  a manner  conformable 
to  established  American  standards  and 
consistent  with  American  citizenship, 
we  agree  to  withdraw  our  claims  for 
higher  wages  and  more  equitable  con- 
ditions of  employment,  providing  that 
the  anthracite  mine  operators  agree  to 
comply  with  any  recommendations  the 
above  committee  may  make  affecting 
the  earnings  and  conditions  of  labor  of 
their  employes. 

“An  immediate  reply  is  solicited. 

“John  Mitchell,  Chairman. 
“T.  D.  Nicholls,  Secretary. 

The  following  are  the  answers  to  the 
foregoing  telegram: 

“May  8,  1902. 

“John  Mitchell. 

‘.‘Not  only  from  our  standpoint,  but 
from  yours  as  well,  the  matter  has  had 
such  full  and  careful  consideration  in 
all  its  features  at  our  several  interviews 
last  week  as  leaves  little  to  be  dis- 
cussed. In  addition,  my  letter  of  Feb. 
20  can  not  fail  to  make  it  clear  to  you 
as  it  is  to  us  that  the  subject  can  not 
be  practically  handled  in  the  manner 
suggested  in  your  telegram. 

“E.  B.  Thomas.” 
“May  8,  1902. 

‘John  Mitchell. 

“Your  message  of  this  date  received. 
You  fail  to  state  in  it  that  the  notices 
posted  by  this  company  not  only  agree 
to  continue  paying  the  10  per  cent,  in- 
crease granted  our  mine  employes  in 
1900  until  April  1,  1903,  and  thereafter 
subject  to  sixty  days’  notice,  but  it  also 
states  our  mining  superintendents  will 
take  up  and  adjust  any  grievances  with 
our  employes.  The  reasons  why  we  can 
not  grant  your  demand  have  been  most 
fully  explained  in  our  recent  confer- 
ances  and  my  letter  to  you  of  Feb.  18 
last.  In  view  of  all  these  facts  I am 
sure  you  can  not  expect  us  to  concur 
in  either  of  the  propositions  contained 
in  your  message  referred  to. 

“W.  H.  Truesdale.” 
“Philadelphia,  May  9,  1902. 
“John  Mitchell. 

“I  was  out  of  town;  therefore  the  de- 
lay in  answering  your  dispatch. 

“By  posted  notices,  the  present  rates 
of  wages  were  continued  until  April, 
1903,  and  thereafter  subject  to  sixty 
days’  notice.  Local  differences  to  be 
adjusted  as  heretofore  with  our  em- 


ployes at  the  respective  collieries.  By 
written  communications,  by  full  dis- 
cussion before  the  Civic  Federation,  by 
protracted  personal  conferences  with 
yourself  and  the  district  presidents,  we 
have  fully  informed  you  of  our  posi- 
tion. We  gave  you  the  figures  show- 
ing the  cost  of  mining  and  marketing 
coal,  and  the  sums  realized  therefrom 
in  the  markets,  in  the  hope  of  convinc- 
ing you  that  it  was  absolutely  imprac- 
ticable to  increase  wages. 

“To  your  suggestion  that  the  price  of 
coal  should  be  increased  to  the  public, 
our  answer  wras  that  this  was  not  only 
undesirable,  but  in  view  of  the  sharp 
competition  of  bituminous  coal  it  was 
impossible.  W'e  offered  to  permit  you 
or  your  experts  to  examine  our  books 
to  verify  our  statements.  Anthracite 
mining  is  a business,  and  not  a re- 
ligious, sentimental,  or  academic  propo- 
sition. The  law's  organizing  the  com- 
panies I represent  in  express  terms  im- 
pose the  business  management  on  the 
president  and  directors.  I could  not  if 
I would  delegate  this  business  manage- 
ment to  even  so  highly  a respectable 
body  as  the  Civic  Federation,  nor  can 
I call  to  my  aid  as  experts  in  the  mixed 
problem  of  business  and  philanthropy 
the  eminent  prelates  you  have  named. 

“George  F.  Baer.” 

“New  York,  May  8,  1902. 
“John  Mitchell,  Esq.,  President  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  Scranton, 
Pa. 

“Your  telegram  is  received.  The  con- 
cessions made  by  the  mine  operators  in 
your  last  strike  added  to  the  wages  of 
the  mine  w'orkers  six  millions  of  dollars 
or  more  per  annum.  You  now  propose 
changes  adding  a charge  of  many  mil- 
lions more  and  suggest  that  you  will 
make  a further  demand  a year  hence. 
The  public  will  not  meet  such  advances 
by  submitting  to  an  increase  in  the 
price  of  coal,  and  the  operators  can  not 
meet  them  without  such  aid.  I must, 
therefore,  decline  your  proposition. 

“R.  M.  Olyphant,  President.” 
These  various  preliminary  discussions 
having  failed  to  accomplish  anything, 
the  executive  committee  of  the  mine 
w'orkers  decided  to  order  a temporal  y 
strike  and  to  submit  the  question  of 
its  continuance  to  a general  conven- 
tion. The  order  of  the  executive  com- 
mittee was  as  follows: 

“To  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  the 
Anthracite  District  of  Pennsylvania: 
“The  executive  committee  of  the  an- 
thracite mine  workers,  who  were  dele- 
gated by  the  Shamokin  convention  to 
represent  you  in  the  negotiations  with 
the  mine  operators  and  railroad  presi- 
dents to  obtain,  if  possible,  higher 
wages,  shorter  hours,  and  better  condi- 
tions of  employment,  after  exhausting 
all  feasible,  conciliatory,  and  honorable 
means  at  their  command,  and  after 
failing  to  secure  any  concessions  of  a 
tangible  nature,  and  w'hile  under  the 
resolutions  adopted  by  the  Shamokin 
convention,  authority  wras  vested  in  the 
executive  committee,  should  they  fail 
in  the  negotiations,  to  inaugurate  a 
strike  at  whatever  time  they  deemed 
in  their  judgment  held  out  the  greatest 
prospects  of  success,  the  committee,  af- 
ter three  days’  serious  deliberations, 
feel  that  in  justice  to  themselves  and 
the  anthracite  mine  workers  and  those 
dependent  upon  them,  before  a joint 
strike  is  inaugurated,  the  question 
should  be  further  considered  by  a dele- 
gate convention  in  which  representa- 


tives from  the  local  unions  shall  be 
fully  instructed  by  their  constituents 
and  prepared  to  vote  either  in  favor 
of  or  in  opposition  to  a complete  cessa- 
tion of  work. 

“In  the  meantime,  all  persons  em- 
ployed in  or  around  the  collieries,  strip- 
pings, w'asheries,  and  breakers  are  in- 
structed to  temporarily  abstain  from 
woi  king,  beginning  Monday,  May  12, 
1902.  and  continuing  thereafter  until 
after  a final  decision  is  reached  by  a 
delegate  convention,  which  will  con- 
vene on  Wednesday,  May  14,  at  Hazle- 
ton, Pa. 

“The  basis  of  representation  in  the 
convention  shall  be  1 vote  for  each  100 
miners  and  1 vote  for  each  additional 
100  members  or  majority  thereof. 

“The  executive  committee  recommend 
that  special  meetings  of  all  locals  be 
held  on  Monday,  May  12,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  selecting  delegates  and  consid- 
ering the  question  involved,  and  it  is 
specially  recommended  that  specific  in- 
structions be  given  delegates  as  to  how 
they  shall  vote  on  the  proposition  to 
inaugurate  a strike  or  to  continue  'o 
work  under  the  present  conditions. 

“The  instructions  for  all  men  to  sus- 
pend work  on  Monday  do  not  include 
firemen,  engineers,  pump  runners,  cr 
other  laborers  necessary  to  preserve 
the  properties  of  the  operators.” 

Under  this  order  work  was  suspended 
May  12,  and  on  the  15th,  the  conven- 
tion, having  assembled,  voted  to  con- 
tinue the  strike.  The  total  vote  cast 
was  811,  the  number  for  the  strike  b:- 
ing  461%,  and  the  number  against  it 
349%.  The  majority  for  the  strike  was, 
therefore,  111%,  the  number  voting  for 
the  strike  being  57  per  cent,  of  the  con- 
vention. 

When  the  strike  was  inaugurated  en- 
gineers, firemen,  and  pumpmen  were 
not  involved,  but  at  a meeting  of  the 
three  anthracite  executive  committees 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  held  in 
W’ilkes-Barre,  May  21,  it  was  decided  to 
call  out  the  engineers,  firemen,  and 
pumpmen  employed  about  the  mines, 
the  order  to  this  end  providing  that 
“Presidents  of  local  unions  and  mine 
committees  are  hereby  instructed  to 
wait  upon  mine  superintendents  and 
notify  them  that  on  and  after  Monday, 
June  2,  all  engineers,  firemen  and 
pumpmen  are  expected  to  work  only 
eight  hours  each  day,  and  are  to  receive 
present  wages.”  These  demands  not 
having  been  granted.  June  2 the  ma- 
jority of  the  engineers,  firemen  and 
pumpmen  stopped  work. 

In  obedience  to  these  orders,  nearly 
the  entire  body  of  mine  workers,  which 
number  about  147,000,  abandoned  their 
employment,  and  remained  idle  until 
the  strike  was  called  off  through  the 
action  of  the  president  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  this  commission.  The  strike 
lasted  from  May  12  to  Oct.  23,  1902. 


LOSSES  FROM  THE  STRIKE. 


It  is  impossible  to  state  with  accu- 
racy the  losses  occasioned  by  the  strike, 
but  fair  estimates  may  be  given.  The 
total  shipments  of  anthracite  coal  in 
1902,  according  to  a statement  by  Mr. 
Wm.  W.  Ruley,  chief  of  the  bureau  of 
anthracite  coal  statistics,  were  31.200.- 
890  long  tons.  As  compared  with  1901. 
when  the  shipments  amounted  to  53.- 
568,601  long  tons,  this  indicates  a de- 
crease of  22,367,711  long  tons,  or  over 


40  per  cent.  If  the  same  decrease  is  as- 
sumed for  the  coal  mined  for  local 
trade  and  consumption,  the  total  de- 
crease in  production  in  1902  amounted 
to  24,604,482  long  tons,  which  at  the 
price  received  in  1901  meant  a decrease 
in  the  receipts  of  the  coal-mining  com- 
panies, for  their  product  at  the  mines, 
of  $46,100,000.  Assuming  the  average 
wage  cost  to  be  about  $1.25  per  ton  on 
marketable  coal,  and  allowing  for  the 
wages  paid  to  engineers,  pumpmen,  and 
others  who  remained  at  work  during 
the  strike,  the  mine  employes  lost  in 
wages  a total  of  about  $25,000,000. 

It  may  also  be  mentioned  that,  ac- 
cording to  reports  made  at  the  recent 
convention  of  mine  workers  in  Indian- 
apolis, there  were  expended  about  $1,- 
800,000  in  relief  funds. 

Assuming  that  60  per  cent,  of  the  to- 
tal shipments  represents  the  sizes 
above  pea  coal,  the  decrease  in  the 
shipments  of  these  larger  sizes  in  1902, 
as  compared  with  1901,  was  13,420,627 
long  tons.  With  an  average  price  at 
New  York  harbor  of  $4.09  per  ton,  and 
with  35  per  cent,  of  the  receipts  charged 
to  transportation  expenses, the  decrease 
in  freights  paid  to  the  railroad  compan- 
ies on  these  larger  sizes,  if  it  had  all 
been  sent  to  New  York  harbor,  would 
have  been  about  $19,000,000;  and  as- 
suming the  freight  rate  of  $1  per  ton 
on  the  smaller  sizes,  the  total  decrease 
in  freight  receipts  on  the  transporta- 
tion companies  would  have  been  about 
$28,000,000. 


WORK  OP  THE  COMMISSION. 


In  studying  this  strike,  probably  the 
greatest  on  record,  the  members  of  the 
commission  feel  that  they  speak  sim- 
ple truth  when  they  say  that  they  have 
done  whatever  it  was  practicable  to  do 
to  acquaint  themselves  with  the  busi- 
ness intrusted  to  them.  As  stated,  they 
have  gone  through  mines  and  inspected 
the  various  conditions  which  the  pro- 
duction of  anthracite  coal  involves; 
they  have  visited  the  breakers,  the  en- 
gine houses,  and  pumping  stations; 
they  have  examined  the  machinery  by 
which  the  mines  are  protected  from 
water  and  foul  air;  they  have  talked 
with  the  miners  at  their  work  and  in 
their  homes,  and  they  have  given  at- 
tention to  the  economic,  domestic, 
scholastic,  and  religious  phases  of  their 
lives;  they  have  listened  to  and  di- 
rected the  examination  and  cross- 
examination  of  558  witnesses;  they 
have  given  free  scope  to  the  counsel 
who  represented  the  operators,  the  non- 
union men,  and  the  miners,  and  they 
have  devoted  an  entire  week  to  hear- 
ing their  arguments. 

In  reviewing  the  whole  case  they 
have  been  impressed  with  the  import- 
ance of  the  issues  involved,  as  well  as 
with  the  intricacy  and  difficulty  of 
many  of  the  problems  presented  to 
them  for  solution,  and  they  have  striv- 
en diligently  to  get  a clear  understand- 
ing of  each  point  upon  wh'ch  they 
were  required  to  make  a finding,  and 
to  do  exact  justice  as  nearly  ns  possi- 
ble to  all  parties  concerned.  There  has 
been  practical  unanimity  among  them, 
and,  though  differences  of  opinion  have 
from  time  to  time  arisen,  there  has  not 
been  a moment  during  the  nearly  five 
months  in  which  they  have  been  in 
session,  when  there  was  an  unpleasant 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


word,  or  any  indication  whatever  of 
thought  or  desire  of  aught  save  truth 
and  justice.  It  has  been  their  constant 
aim  to  keep  themselves  from  bias,  that 
they  might  see  things  as  they  are  and 
weigh  them  dispassionately.  They 
are  fully  aware  that  in  so  complex  and 
involved  a condition  as  that  by  which 
they  were  confronted  it  would  be  rash 
to  imagine  that  they  have  been  able  to 
get  an  adequate  view  and  a thorough 
understanding  of  the  problem,  or  that 
they  have  succeeded  in  so  formulating 
their  conclusions  as  to  make  misun- 
derstanding or  misinterpretation  im- 
possible. 

All  through  their  investigations  and 
deliberations  the  conviction  has  grown 
upon  them  that  if  they  could  evoke 
and  confirm  a more  genuine  spirit  of 
good  will — a more  conciliatory  disposi- 
tion in  the  operators  and  their  em- 
ployes in  their  relations  toward  one 
another — they  would  do  a better  and  a 
more  lasting  work  than  any  which 
mere  rulings,  however  wise  or  just, 
may  accomplish.  Fairness,  forbear- 
ance, and  good  will  are  the  prerequis- 
ites of  peace  and  harmonious  co-opera- 
tion in  all  the  social  and  economic  rela- 
tions of  men.  The  interests  of  employ- 
ers and  employes  are  reciprocal.  The 
success  of  industrial  processes  is  the 
result  of  their  co-operation,  and  their 
attitude  toward  one  another,  therefore, 
should  be  that  of  friends,  not  that  of 
foes;  and  since  those  who  depend  for 
a livelihood  on  the  labor  of  their  hands 
bear  the  heavier  burdens  and  have  less 
opportunity  to  upbuild  their  higher  be- 
ing, the  men  of  position  and  education, 
for  whom  they  labor,  should  lead  them 
not  more  in  virtue  of  their  greater  abil- 
ity and  capital  than  in  virtue  of  their 
greater  loving-kindness. 

Where  production  is  controlled  des- 
potically. by  capital  there  may  be  a 
seeming  prosperity,  but  the  qualities 
which  give  sacredness  and  worth  to  life 
are  enfeebled  or  destroyed.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  a trustful  and  conciliatory 
disposition  the  strife  between  capital 
and  labor  can  not  be  composed  by  laws 
and  contrivances.  The  causes  from 
which  it  springs  are  as  deep  as  man’s 
nature,  and  nothing  that  is  powerless 
to  illumine  the  mind  and  touch  the 
heart  can  reach  the  fountain  head  of 
the  evil.  So  long  as  employers  and  em- 
ployes continue  to  look  on  one  another 
as  opponents  and  antagonists,  so  long 
shall  their  relations  be  unsatisfactory 
and  strained,  requiring  but  a slight 
thing  to  provoke  the  open  warfare 
which  is  called  a strike. 

It  is  in  this  spirit  the  commission 
has  made  its  investigation  and  sub- 
mits its  report  and  award,  and  it  is  in 
this  spirit  the  award  must  be  received 
by  all  the  parties  to  the  submission  if 
it  is  to  have  the  effect  desired  by  them 
and  by  all  good  citizens. 

Naturally,  some  questions  have  been 
presented  to  the  commission  that  are 
incapable  of  final  solution,  owing  to 
the  difficulties  which  are  inherent  in 
human  nature.  Nevertheless,  while 
conscious  of  fallibility,  the  members 
indulge  the  hope  that  substantial  jus- 
tice will  have  been  achieved  by  their 
findings  and  a-ward,  and  that  better 
relations  between  the  parties  concerned 
will  hereafter  exist. 


279 


DEMANDS  OF  MINE  WORKERS. 


With  these  general  statements  and 
facts  drawn  from  the  testimony  and 
from  various  official  and  other  sources, 
we  now  proceed  to  the  discussion  of 
the  points  at  issue.  For  the  purpose 
of  securing  an  orderly  procedure,  the 
commission  ordered  that  the  mine 
workers  should  be  considered  as  the 
pursuing  party,  and  they  accordingly 
opened  and  closed  the  case.  It  also  re- 
quired that  their  statement  of  claims 
should  be  specific  enough  to  give  fair 
notice  to  the  other  side  of  the  griev- 
ances complained  of,  and  of  the  gen- 
eral contentions  to  be  urged  in  the 
premises. 

The  statements  so  filed  on  behalf  of 
the  mine  workers  disclosed  four  gener- 
al demands,  accompanied  by  specific 
arguments  in  support  of  the  same.  All 
the  original  parties  and  many  of  the 
intervening  parties  filed  answers  to 
this  statement  of  claim,  and  the  plead- 
ings, consisting  of  the  statement  of 
claim  and  the  several  answers  thereto, 
will  be  found  in  full  in  the  appendix. 

The  demands  in  the  statement  of 
claim  made  by  the  mine  workers  are 
as  follows: 

“First.  An  increase  of  20  per  cent, 
upon  the  prices  paid  during  the  year 
1901  to  employes  performing  contract  or 
piece  work. 

“This  demand  is  made  on  account  of 
the  following  reasons: 

“(1)  The  present  rate  of  wages  Is 
much  lower  than  the  rate  of  wages 
paid  in  the  bituminous  coal  fields  for 
substantially  similar  work. 

“(2)  The  present  rate  of  wages  is 
lower  than  is  paid  in  other  occupations 
requiring  equal  skill  and  training. 

“(3)  The  average  annual  earnings  in 
the  anthracite  coal  fields  are  much  less 
than  the  average  annual  earnings  in 
the  bituminous  coal  fields  for  substan- 
tially similar  work. 

“(4)  The  average  annual  earnings  in 
the  anthracite  coal  fields  are  much  less 
than  the  average  annual  earnings  for 
occupations  requiring  equal  skill  and 
training. 

“(5)  The  rate  of  wages  in  the  an- 
thracite coal  fields  is  insufficient  to 
compensate  the  mine  workers  in  view 
of  the  dangerous  character  of  the  oc- 
cupation. in  relation  to  accidents,  the 
liaability  to  serious  and  permanent  dis- 
ease, the  high  death  rate  and  the  short 
trade  life  incident  to  this  employment. 

“(6)  The  annual  earningsof  the  mine 
workers  are  insufficient  to  maintain  the 
American  standard  of  living. 

“(7)  The  increased  cost  of  living  has 
made  it  impossible  to  maintain  a fair 
standard  of  life  upon  the  basis  of  pres- 
ent wages  and  has  not  only  prevented 
the  mine  workers  from  securing  any 
benefit  from  increased  prosperity,  but 
has  made  their  condition  poorer  on  ac- 
count of  it. 

“(8)  The  wages  of  the  anthracite 
mine  workers  are  so  low  that  their 
children  are  prematurely  forced  into 
the  breakers  and  mills  instead  of  being 
supported  and  educated  upon  the  earn- 
ings of  their  parents. 

“(9)  Wages  are  below  the  fair  and 
just  earnings  of  mine  workers  in  this 
industry. 

“Second.  A reduction  of  20  per  cent, 
in  hours  of  labor  without  any  reduc- 
tion of  earnings  for  all  employes  paid 
by  the  hour,  day  or  week. 


280 


“The  second  demand  is  similar  to  the 
first  in  that  it  is  designed  to  increase 
the  hourly  rate  of  wages  of  mine  work- 
ers employed  by  the  hour,  day  or  week, 
and  all  the  reasons  applicable  to  the 
first  demand  are  asked  to  be  applied 
to  the  second  without  repetition. 

“In  addition  thereto  we  submit  the 
following: 

“(10)  The  ten-hour  day  is  detrimen- 
tal to  the  health,  life,  safety  and  well- 
being of  the  mine  workers. 

“(11)  Shorter  hours  improve  the 
physical,  mental  and  moral  condition 
of  the  workers. 

“(12)  Shorter  hours  increase  theln- 
tensity  and  efficiency  of  labor. 

“(13)  The  tendency  of  national  and 
state  governments,  of  organized 
trades  and  of  production  generally  is 
toward  shorter  hours. 

“(14)  A -working  day  of  eight  hours 
is  sufficiently  long  for  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  workingmen  and  of  the  com- 
munity. 

“Third.  The  adoption  of  a system  by 
which  coal  shall  be  weighed  and  paid 
for  by  weight  wherever  practicable; 
the  minimum  rate  per  ton  to  be  60 
cents  for  a legal  ton  of  2,240  pounds; 
the  differentials  now  existing  at  the 
various  mines  to  be  maintained. 

“This  demand  is  made  on  account  of 
the  following  reasons; 

“(1)  Measurement  by  the  legal  ton 
wherever  practicable  is  the  only  hon- 
est and  just  system  of  measuring  the 
earnings  of  the  mine  workers. 

“(2)  When  the  operators  sell  or 
transport  coal  it  is  on  the  basis  of  a 
legal  ton  of  2,240  pounds. 

“(3)  The  excessive  ton  was  original- 
ly intended  to  compensate  the  operator 
for  the  weight  of  the  small  sizes  or 
coal  which  were  then  discarded  but 
which  are  now  utilized  and  sold  and 
therefore  there  is  no  present  necessity 
for  the  use  of  any  other  than  the  legal 
ton. 

“(4)  The  adoption  of  this  system 
would  remove  an  incentive,  both  to  the 
operator  and  the  worker,  to  cheating 
and  dishonesty,  and  would  allay  jeal- 
ousy among  the  miners  and  prevent 
unjust  discrimination  and  favoritism. 

“(5)  The  change  of  the  present  sys- 
tem to  the  one  asked  for  would  prove 
a strong  factor  in  allaying  suspicion 
and  discontent  amongst  the  mine  work- 
ers. 

“Fourth.  The  incorporation  in  an 
agreement  between  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  and  the  anthra- 
cite coal  companies  of  the  wages  which 
shall  be  paid  and  the  conditions  of 
emnloyment  which  shall  obtain,  to- 
gether with  satisfactory  methods  for 
the  adjustment  of  grievances  which 
may  arise  from  time  to  time,  to  the 
end  that  strikes  and  lockouts  may  be 
unnecessary. 

“In  support  of  this  demand  we  sub- 
mit the  following  reasons; 

“(1)  The  anthracite  mine  workers 
should  not  be  compelled  to  make  or  sign 
individual  agreements  but  should  have 
the  right  to  form  such  organization 
and  choose  such  agents  and  officers  as 
they  desire  to  act  collectively  instead  of 
individually  whenever  they  deem  that 
their  best  interests  are  subserved  there- 
by. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


“(2)  Agreements  between  employers 
and  employes  through  workingmen’s 
organizations  are  the  ordinary  method 
of  regulating  production  and  wages  in 
the  bituminous  coal  fields  and  in  other 
large  industries,  and  are  beneficial, 
successful  and  in  keeping  with  the 
spirit  of  the  times. 

“(3)  Unions  of  workingmen  tend  to 
better  discipline  of  the  men  and  to  the 
improvement  of  their  physical,  moral 
and  mental  condition  and  to  the  pre- 
servation of  friendly  relations  between 
employer  and  employe. 

“(4)  Experience  shows  that  the  trade 
agreement  is  the  only  effective  method 
by  which  it  is  possible  to  regulate  ques- 
tions arising  between  employers  and 
employed  in  large  industries,  and  that 
a trade  agreement  is  the  only  possible 
way  ‘to  establish  the  relations  between 
employers  and  the  wage  workers  in  the 
anthracite  fields  on  a just  and  perman- 
ent basis  and  as  far  as  possible  to  do 
away  with  any  causes  for  the  recur- 
rence of  such  difficulties  as  those  you 
(the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commis- 
sion, have  been  called  in  to  settle.’  ” 

ANSWERS  OF  MINE  OPERATORS. 

To  these  demands  and  the  reasons  in 
support  thereof  the  several  answers  of 
the  operators  make  general  and  specific 
denial.  No  good  purpose  would  be  ac- 
complished by  here  reciting  even  a 
summary  of  these  answers  on  this 
point,  even  if  their  volume  did  not  for- 
bid. These  answers  all  agree  in  charac- 
terizing the  demands  as  unreasonable 
and  unjust,  and  unsupported  by  facts 
pertaining  to  the  industry.  They  all 
declare  the  wages  now  paid  are  ade- 
quate to  maintain  the  American  stand- 
ard of  living,  and  compare  favorably 
with  wages  paid  in  other  industries  re- 
quiring no  greater  skill  or  experience 
and  exposing  the  employes  to  as  great 
or  greater  hazard.  They  deny  that 
the  condition  of  labor  in  the  mines  is 
such  as  to  expose  the  employes  to  ex- 
traordinary hazards,  or  liability  to  dis- 
ease or  premature  death,  as  compared 
with  many  other  employments  requir- 
ing equal  skill  and  training,  and  in 
which  lower  rates  of  wages  prevail. 
They  insist  that  a large  proportion  of 
the  accidents  in  the  mines  is  due  to  the 
carelessness  of  the  men,  and  not  to  the 
nature  of  the  work.  They  deny  that  the 
increased  cost  of  living  is  such  as  to 
make  it  impossible  for  mine  employes 
to  maintain  a fair  standard  of  life  upon 
the  basis  of  present  wages,  or  that  the 
mine  workers  have  been  prevented 
thereby  from  securing  benefit  from  in- 
creased prosperity.  They  contend  that 
the  earnings  of  contract  miners  are 
less  than  they  might  otherwise  be,  in 
consequence  of  restrictions  placed  by 
the  miners’  organization  upon  hours  ot 
labor  or  quantity  of  output.  Some  of 
them  allege  that  the  contract  miners 
work  only  about  six  hours,  or  even 
less,  a day  and  take  numerous  holidays, 
whereas  longer  hours  and  less  inter- 
rupted work  would  materially  increase 
their  earnings,  and  that,  in  effect,  they 
are  demanding  for  less  work  than  they 
ought  reasonably  to  perform,  larger 
pay  than  would  be  due  for  a proper 
number  of  hours  of  work  per  day. 

These  claims  and  contentions  on  the 
part  of  the  mine  workers  and  the  an- 
swers thereto,  together  with  the  testi- 
mony in  their  support  adduced  by  the 
parties,  respectively,  have  been  con- 
sidered by  the  commission,  with  the 
following  results: 


FINDINGS  OF  THE  COMMISSION. 


1.— DEMAND  FOR  HIGHER  WAGES 
FOR  CONTRACT  MINERS. 

The  commission  finds  that  the  con- 
ditions of  the  life  of  mine  workers  out- 
side the  mines,  do  not  justify,  to  their 
full  extent,  the  adverse  criticisms  made 
by  their  representatives,  in  their  con- 
tentions at  the  hearings  and  in  their 
arguments  before  the  commission  in 
support  of  the  proposition  “that  the 
annual  earnings  of  the  mine  workers 
are  insufficient  to  maintain  the  Ameri- 
can standard  of  living.”  It  is  true  that 
the  attention  of  the  commission  was 
called  to  a few  houses  in  which  miners 
or  mine  workers  dwelt  which  were  not 
fit  to  be  called  habitations  of  men,  and 
there  was  testimony  that  others  nearly 
as  bad  existed:  but  the  disparity  in 
human  character  is  often  manifested 
by  a like  disparity  in  homes  and  sur- 
roundings, and  this  must  not  be  lost 
sight  of  in  considering  the  general  con- 
ditions of  the  community  in  this  re- 
spect. 

There  was  also  evidence  that  during 
the  last  twenty  years  a general  though 
gradual  improvement  in  miners’  houses 
has  taken  place.  Moreover,  in  any 
locality  where  those  occupying  the 
houses  presumably  receive  or  have  op- 
portunity to  receive  substantially  the 
same  earnings,  the  best  houses,  if  they 
are  in  a majority,  and  not  the  worst, 
should  be  the  standard.  This  should  be 
borne  in  mind  especially  when  there  is 
a question  of  the  homes  of  recent  im- 
migrants, as  to  whose  houses,  where 
they  do  not  approach  a proper  stand- 
ard, it  is  impossible  to  say  how  much 
choice  and  volition  have  had  to  do 
with  their  inferiority.  The  homes  and 
surroundings  of  the  English-speaking 
miners  and  mine  workers  are  generally 
superior  to  those  of  the  class  just 
mentioned,  and  show  an  intelligent  ap- 
preciation of  the  decencies  of  life  and 
ability  to  realize  them. 

During  the  hearings  much  comment 
was  made  on  so-colled  company  houses 
— that  is,  houses  erected  and  owned  by 
the  coal  companies  and  rented  to  their 
employes.  The  statistics  produced  at 
the  hearings  show  that  the  percentage 
of  employes  living  in  company  houses 
is  not  large.  So  far  as  could  be  as- 
certained, the  facts  show  that  in  the 
northern  and  southern  coal  fields  less 
than  10  per  cent,  of  the  employes  rent 
their  houses  from  the  employing  com- 
panies, while  in  the  middle  coal  fields 
a little  less  than  35  per  cent,  of  employes 
so  rent  their  houses.  In  this  statement 
boarders  are  not  taken  into  account. 
When  the  mines  were  first  opened  they 
were  in  many  instances  at  considerable 
distance  from  villages  and  towns,  and 
thus  it  became  necessary  for  the  com- 
panies to  erect  dwellings  in  which  to 
house  their  employes.  Without  this  the 
mining  of  coal  could  not  have  been  car- 
ried on:  but  as  the  villages  and  towns 
have  grown  up  around  the  mining 
camps,  the  companies  have  gradually 
abandoned  their  earlier  system,  the  em- 
ployes living  wherever  they  choose. 
Some  of  the  older  company  houses  are 
in  poor  condition,  but  it  will  not  be 
many  years  before  they  are  of  the  past. 

The  population  and  the  proportion  of 
home  owners  of  the  anthracite  region 
as  compared  with  other  parts  of  the 
United  States  are  shown  in  the  follow- 
ing tables,  taken  from  the  twelfth  cen- 
sus: 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


281 


(Table  No.  8.) 

POPULATION  AND  HOME  OWNERSHIP  IN  ANTHRACITE  AND  NON-AN 
THRACITE  COUNTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA,  IN  THE  NORTH  ATLANTIC 
STATES,  AND  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

[Data  from  P.art  II  of  the  Report  on  Population  of  the  Twelfth  Census.] 


Total 

Region.  populatior 

Pennsylvania: 

The  anthracite  counties— 

Carbon  -14,510 

Columbia  39,896 

Lackawanna  193,831 

Luzerne  257,121 

Northumberland  90,911 

Schuylkill  127,927 


Total  799,196 

The  non-anta’ite  counties.  5,502,115 


Total  6,302,115 

The  North  Atlantic  states 21,046,695 

The  United  States  76,303,387 


Population  living  in  private 


Per 

Number  of 

cent,  of 

Number  of 

farm 

Total. 

total. 

families. 

homes. 

42,376 

95.21 

8.702 

1,014 

39,019 

97.80 

8,675 

2,751 

186,531 

96.23 

38,054 

1,855 

250,477 

97.42 

49,443 

3,289 

88,427 

97.27 

18,530 

2,611 

168,143 

97.23 

33,789 

2,989 

774,973 

96.97 

157,194 

14,512 

5,311,622 

96.52 

1,145,980 

210,544 

6,086,595 

96.58 

1,303,174 

225,036 

20,180,490 

95.88 

4,557,266 

675,776 

73,562,195 

96.41 

16,006,437 

5,700,341 

POPULATION  AND  HOME  OWNERSHIP  IN  ANTHRACITE  AND  NON-AN- 
THRACITE COUNTIES  OF  PENNSYLVANIA,  IN  THE  NORTH  ATLANTIC 
STATES,  AND  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES— Concluded. 


Region.  Total. 

Pennsylvania: 

The  anthracite  counties — 

Carbon  7,689 

Columbia  5,921 

Lackawanna  36,199 

Luzerne  46,154 

Northumberland  15,919 

Schuylkill  30,800 


Total  142,682 

The  non-anthracite  counties 935,436 


Total  1,078,118 

The  North  Atlantic  states 3,947,961 

The  United  States  10,539,456 


Homes  not  on  farms. 

Owned  without  in- 
Owned.  cumbrance. 

Per  cent. 


Per  cent. 

of  number 

Number. 

of  total 

Number,  owned. a 

2,721 

35.39 

1,864 

69.32 

2,655 

44.84 

1,720 

72.67 

14,809 

40.91 

9.376 

66.28 

15,680 

33.97 

9,892 

65.56 

5,253 

33.00 

2,935 

59.04 

10,414 

33.81 

6,455 

66.86 

51,532 

36.12 

32,242 

65.92 

308,219 

32.95 

186,933 

63.00 

359,751 

33.37 

219,175 

63.93 

1.182,741 

29.96 

657,860 

57.50 

3,628,990 

34.43 

2,350,759 

68.08 

a On  basis  of  those  owned  for  which  the  fact  of  incumbrance  or  otherwise  is  re- 
ported. In  many  cases  this  was  not.  ascertained. 


(Table  No.  9.) 

HOME  OWNERSHIP  IN  CERTAIN  PENNSYLVANIA  TOWNS. 

[Data  from  pages  709  and  710  of  Part  II  of  the  Report  on  Population  of  the  Twelfth 

Census.] 


Owned  and  un- 
owned. incumbered. 


- 

Total 

Per 

Per 

number  of 

cent,  of 

cent. 

Town. 

homes. 

Number. 

total. 

Number. 

(a) 

Carbondale  

2,887 

1,549 

53.65 

1.083 

71.02 

Dunmore  

2,469 

1,282 

51.92 

694 

62.92 

Hazleton  

2,866 

836 

29,17 

649 

77.91 

Mahanov  City  

2,517 

710 

28.21 

411 

58.71 

Mount  Carmel  

2,411 

727 

30.15 

404 

55.80 

Nanticoke  

2,298 

836 

36.38 

343 

41.33 

Pittston  

2,470 

1,144 

46.32 

734 

74.75 

Plymouth  

2,668 

693 

25.97 

449 

56.13 

Pottsville  

3,415 

1,283 

37.57 

855 

67.32 

Scranton  

20,299 

7,436 

36.63 

4,600 

64.04 

Shamokin  

3,561 

892 

25.05 

507 

62.59 

Shenandoah  

3,620 

803 

22.18 

487 

63.25 

Wilkes-Barre  

10,140 

3,512 

34.64 

2,009 

5S.86 

a On  basis  of  those  owned  for  which  the  fact  of  incumbrance  or  otherwise  is  re- 
ported. In  many  cases  this  was  not  ascertained. 


The  commission  also  finds  that  the 
social  conditions  obtaining  in  the  com- 
munities made  up  largely  of  mine  work- 
ers are  good.  The  number  and  char- 
acter of  the  public  schools  accessible  in 
all  these  communities  are  fully  up  to 
the  American  standard,  as  shown  by 
the  four  tables  following: 

(See  Tables  Nos.  10,  11,  12,  13.) 

The  number  of  churches  in  proportion 
to  the  poplation  is  rather  above  the 
average,  and  the  opportunities  general- 


ly for  mental  and  religious  instruction 
appear  to  be  adequate. 

The  contention  that  the  increased  cost 
of  living,  has  made  it  impossible  to 
maintain  a fair  standard  of  life,  upon 
the  basis  of  present  earnings,  and  has 
not  only  prevented  the  mine  workers 
from  securing  any  benefit  from  in- 
creased prosperity  and  from  the  in- 
crease in  wages  made  in  1900,  but  has 
rendered  their  condition  poorer  can  not 
be  fully  allowed  in  the  terms  in  which 
it  is  made,  although  the  increased  cost 


of  living  since  1900  is  an  element  that 
has  been  carefully  considered.  This  in- 
crease for  the  past  few  years,  as  as- 
certained by  an  investigation  made  by 
the  United  States  Department  of  Labor 
for  a forthcoming  report,  and  taking 
into  consideration  the  leading  articles 
of  consumption  for  food,  amounts  to 
9.8  per  cent.  A summary  of  this  invest- 
gation,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  an- 
thracite coal  region,  will  be  found  in 
the  appendix  to  this  report,  and  is 
submitted  herewith.  From  this  it  is 
seen  that,  taking  the  average  quantity 
of  articles  consumed  per  family  and 
assuming  prices  for  1901  to  be  100,  in 
1898  they  were  96.5;  in  1899,  94.5;  in 
1900,  96.7,  and  in  1902,  106.2,  the  relative 
increase  in  cost  between  1900  and  1902 
therefore,  being,  as  stated,  9.8  per  cent. 
These  conclusions  are  based  on  retail 
prices  secured  by  special  agents  of  the 
Department  of  Labor  from  58  establish- 
ments, representing  13  cities  or  towns  in 
the  anthracite  regions,  and  are  trust- 
worthy so  far  as  they  go. 

A witness  for  the  miners  (J.  W.  Rit- 
tenhouse)  submitted  some  data  col- 
lected by  him  relative  to  the  cost  of 
living.  In  giving  a list  of  the  neces- 
saries of  life  for  a miner’s  family  he 
stated  that  in  1900  they  cost  $17.61;  in 
December.  1901,  $20.29,  and  in  1902, 

$22.94,  and  that  the  general  increase 
was  30  per  cent,  between  1900  and  1902. 
Mr.  John  D.  Hughes,  another  witness 
produced  on  behalf  of  the  mine  work- 
ers, and  manager  of  Armour  & Co.’s 
interests  in  the  city  of  Scranton,  in 
answer  to  a question  as  to  what  the 
general  result  showed  as  to  prices  be- 
tween 1900  and  1902,  stated  that  in  1901 
the  general  increase  over  10y2  per  cent, 
and  in  1902,  23.2  per  cent. 

Statistics  of  this  kind,  however,  are 
rather  too  inexact  for  a satisfactory 
basis  on  which  to  make  precise  cal- 
culations when  considering  ;he  question 
of  an  increase  of  wages,  for  there  are 
some  elements  entering  into  the  ascer- 
tainment of  an  average  rise  of  prices  in 
such  a period  as  that  we  are  consider- 
ing, which  are  temporary  in  their  effect. 
So  there  are  other  elements  which  in- 
fluence the  average  disproportinately  to 
their  effect  upon  the  expenditures  of 
the  individual.  As  an  example  of  this 
inexactness  or  uncertainty  we  may  cite 
the  rose  in  proee  of  one  of  the  prime 
necessaries  of  life — meat — during  1902. 
which  was  sudden  and  serious  and 
which  had  its  effect  on  other  prime 
necessaries,  and  yet  recent  experience 
has  demonstrated  its  temporay  char- 
acter. 

Another  contention  of  the  miners,  to 
wit,  that  the  wages  of  contract  miners 
are  necessarily  so  low  that  their  chil- 
dren are  prematurely  forced  into  break- 
ers and  mills,  has  not  been  fully  sus- 
tained, and  the  commission  does  not 
think  that  the  testimony  warrants  it  in 
finding  as  a fact  the  allegations  so 
made. 

So  much  is  said  on  these  points,  be- 
cause a disproportionate  length  of  time 
/as  occupied  in  giving  testimony,  and 
In  making  arguments  before  the  com- 
mission in  regard  to  them,  and  it  is  de- 
sired to  dispose  of  them  here,  that  we 
may  consider  more  closely  the  more  im- 
portant factors  that  should  influence  a 
proper  judgment  as  to  the  merits  of  the 
demand  made  for  higher  wages. 

As  to  the  general  contention  that  the 
rates  of  compensation  for  contract  min- 
ers in  the  anthracite  region,  are  lower 
than  those  paid  in  the  bituminous  fields 


282 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


(Table  No.  10.) 

NUMBER  AND  PER  CENT.  OF  PERSONS  ATTENDING  SCHOOL  DURING 
CENSUS  YEAR  1899-1900,  IN  SELECTED  CITIES,  BY  CLASSIFIED  AGES. 
(Data  from  Part  II  of  the  Report  on  Population  of  the  Twelfth  Census.) 


City. 


m <D 
<D  > 

cd  “ 

C o 
<D  C 
<D  .S 

Bo 

0) 

in  C 
C 

s - 


Persons  attending  school  during  census  year. 


Scranton,  Pa 

Fall  River,  Mass. 
Paterson,  N.  J.'. 
Wilkes-Barre,  Pa 
Elizabeth,  N.  J.. 
Erie,  Pa — 


35,532 

33,170 

17,473 

16,229 

16,537 


Total. 

Males. 

Under  10 
yrs.  of  age. 

10  to  14 
yrs.  of  age. 

15  yrs.  old 
and  over. 

Number. 

Per  cent,  of  those 
of  school  age. 

Number. 

_ 

Per  cent,  of  those 
attending. 

Number. 

Per  cent,  of  those 
attending. 

Number. 

Per  cent,  of  those 
attending. 

Number. 

Per  cent,  of  those 
attending. 

16,537 

48.21 

7,923 

47.91 

6,325 

38.25 

7,993 

48.33 

2,219 

13.42 

16.9S0 

47.79 

8,441 

49.71 

6,986 

41.14 

8,622 

50.78 

1,372 

8.08 

17,540 

52.88 

8,770 

50.00 

8,601 

49.05 

7.747 

44.17 

1,189 

6.78 

8,878 

50.81 

4,247 

47.84 

3.511 

39.55 

4,142 

46.65 

1,225 

13.80 

8,625 

53.15 

4,290 

49.74 

3,291 

38.16 

4,293 

49.77 

1,041 

12.07 

7,988 

48.30 

3,870 

4S.45 

2,901 

36.321 

4,055 

50.76 

1,032 

12.92 

(Table  No.  11.) 

ENROLLED  PUPILS  IN  PUBLIC  AND  PRIVATE  SCHOOLS  AND  ATTEND- 
ANCE IN  PUBLIC  DAY  SCHOOLS  IN  CERTAIN  TOWNS  OF  PENNA. 
(Data  from  the  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Education  for  1899-1900.) 


Place. 


Enrolled  Pupils. 


C c4 

T 

+-»  in 

i° 

r o 


£3  O 
£2 
B a 


£ o 
o 

<D  O 

& in 

£ 

3 


Total. 


m • 
u 

<d  bfl 

a a 


c o 

<d  m 


Attendance  in  pub- 
lic day  schools. 


Carbondale  

154 

2,607 

2,595 

2,761 

2,595 

62.11 

59.52 

391,950 

428,000 

2,010 

2,14) 

Hazleton  

400 

2,850 

3.250 

65.05 

389,340 

2,163 

Mahanoy  City 

200 

2,150 

2,350 

50.  S4 

301,500 

1,675 

Mount  Carmel 

200 

2,190 

2,390 

50.72 

254,694 

1.415 

Nanticoke  

950 

2.214 

3,164 

71.57 

273,960 

1,522 

Pittston  

750 

1,650 

2,400 

56.78 

216,000 

1,200 

Plymouth  

750 

1,986 

2,736 

57.99 

252,938 

1,421 

Pottsville  

500 

2,988 

3,488 

70.00 

451,400 

2,257 

Shamokin  

1,350 

3,654 

5,004 

76.32 

474,660 

2.637 

Shenandoah  

450 

3,053 

3,503 

54.42 

421,200 

2,340 

a Largely  estimated  by  the  Bureau  of  Education. 

(Table  No.  12.) 

LENGTH  OF  SCHOOL  ATTENDANCE  IN  SELECTED  CITIES  DURING  CEN- 
SUS YEAR  1399-1900. 


(Data  from  Part 

It  of  the  Report  on  Population  of  the 

Twelfth 

Census.) 

Persons 

attending 

for 

specified 

periods  during 

census 

year. 

One 

■ month  orTwo  to  three 

Four  to  five 

Six  months  or 

less. 

months. 

months. 

more. 

Num 

- P.  C. 

Num-  P.C.  of 

Num- 

■ P.C.  of  Num-  P.C.  of 

City. 

her. 

of  total. 

her. 

total. 

belt 

total. 

ber. 

total. 

Scranton,  Pa 

77 

0.46 

254 

1.54 

331 

2.00 

15,875 

96.u0 

Fall  River,  Mass 

146 

.86 

2SS 

1.70 

237 

1.39 

16,309 

96.05 

Paterson,  N.  .) 

74 

.42 

226 

1.29 

377 

2.15 

16.S63 

96. 14 

Wilkes-Barre,  Pa 

.23 

74 

.83 

99 

1.11 

S.6S5 

97,83 

Elizabeth,  N.  .1 

31 

.36 

78 

.90 

122 

1.42 

8,394 

97. 82 

Erie,  Pa 

31 

.39 

85 

1.06 

ItX) 

1.25 

7,772 

97.30 

for  work  substantially  similar,  or  lower 
than  are  paid  in  other  ocupations  re- 
quiring- equal  skill  and  training,  the 


commission  finds  that  there  has  been  a 
failure  to  produce  testimony  to  sustain 
either  of  these  propositions. 


As  to  the  bituminous  fields,  we  have 
no  satisfactory  evidence  upon  which  to 
base  a comparison  between  the  stand- 
ard of  earnings  there,  and  in  the  an- 
thracite fields  neither  miners  nor  oper- 
ators adducing  evidence  upon  which  an 
jnte'ligent  judgment -on  that  point  might 
be  formed.  There  was.  however,  a good 
d;eal  of  testimony  upon  the  second 
proposition,  that  the  present  rates  of 
compensation  in  the  anthracite  region 
are  lower  than  those  in  other  occupa- 
tions. requiring  equal  skill  and  training. 
It  is  difficult  to  institute  a compari- 
son, owing  to  the  fact  that  the  con- 
tract miners,  who  constitue  approxi- 
maely  26  per  cent  and  their  laborers  IS 
pcr  cent,  of  the  mine  workers,  are  paid 
according  to  contract — so  much  for  a 
given  amount  of  coal  produced.  As  to 
this  class,  of  course,  the  conditions  on 
which  a rate  of  daily  or  monthly  earn- 
ings depends,  are  so  variant  that  a de- 
duction of  a uniform  daily  or  monthly 
rate  can  not  well  be  obtained  or  ex- 
pected. 

To  some  extent  the  contract  miner 
has  within  hi=  own  control  the  number 
of  hours  he  shall  work  each  day,  ana 
consequently  the  amount  of  work  he 
shall  perform.  He  is  paid  by  the  mine 
car,  yard,  or  ton  for  the  coal  he  blows 
down,  the  loading  of  which  into  the 
mine  car  is  generally  the  work  of  a 
laborer,  who  is  paid  bv  the  contract 
miner,  who  also  pays  for  powder,  oil, 
and  tools,  so  that  in  many  respects  he 
may  be  called  an  independent  contrac- 
tor. For  our  present  purpose  it  is  im- 
portant to  ascertain,  first,  the  net  earn- 
ings he  is  able  to  make  for  the  day  or 
the  year,  and,  second,  what  h»  actually 
does  make.  We  find  some,  though  not 
a great,  difference  in  the  answers  to 
these  two  inquiries.  It  is  not  surpris- 
ing to  find  that  there  is  much  difference 
in  the  annual  earnings  of  such  miners. 
Experience,  natural  capacity,  aptitude 
for  the  work,  individual  industry,  and 
habits  of  sobriety  materially  affect  the 
amount  that  is  earned. 

In  addition  to  these  causes  of  differ- 
ence, which  are  more  or  less  in  the 
control  of  the  miner,  there  are  other 
inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  work, 
which,  though  there  is  a tendency  to 
overcome  them  by  differential  rates  of 
payment  and  by  allowances,  still  con- 
stitute serious  obstacles  to  uniformity 
in  the  miners’  monthly  or  yearly  earn- 
ings. Such  are  the  variations  in  thick- 
ness and  pitch  of  the  coal  seams,  faults, 
and  the  greater  or  less  impurity  of  the 
coal  owing  to  the  presence  of  rock,  slate 
and  other  foreign  substances.  Although 
there  is  an  endavor.  as  has  been  said, 
to  overcome  these  difficulties  by  allow- 
ances, there  still  must  remain,  when  the 
'best  has  been  done,  inequality  arising 
from  these  causes  in  the  aggregate 
yearly  earnings  of  the  miner. 

Compilations  have  been  made,  at  the 
request  of  the  commission,  by  the  var- 
ious operators,  parties  to  the  subnrs- 
sion.  showing  the  gross  and  net  earn- 
ings of  the  contract  miners,  practically 
covering  the  year  1901.  These  compila- 
tions. with  the  tables  of  wages  pa;d  all 
mine  workers  have  been  pr  pared  at 
great  expense,  and  have  been  accepted, 
for  the  most  part,  by  the  representa- 
tives of  the  miners  a=  showing  truly 
what  they  purport  to  show.  From 
them  other  tables  and  deductions  have 
been  made  under  the  direction  of  the 
recorder  and  the  assistant  recorder.  Dr. 
Neill,  and  they  have  proved  of  great 
value  in  the  deliberations  of  the  com- 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


283 


(Table  No.  13.) 

SCHOOL  POPULATION,  VALUE  OP  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  PROPERTY,  AND  AN- 
NUAL EXPENDITURE  FOR  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS  IN  CERTAIN 
TOWNS  OP  PENNSYLVANIA.  . 

(Data  from  Part  II  of  the  Report  on  Population  of  the  Twelfth  Census  and  the 
Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Education  for  1899-1905.) 


Value  of  public, 
school  property. 

Per 


Persons 
of  school 


individual 
of  school 


Annual  expen- 
diture. 

Per 

individual 
of  school 


Amount,  age.  Amount,  age. 


Place. 


Carbondale  

Dunmore  

Hazleton  

Mahanoy  City 

Mount  Carmel  — 

Nanticoke  

Pittston  

Plymouth  

Pottsville  

Scranton  

Shamokin  

Shenandoah  

Wilkes-Barre  

a Not  reported. 


mission.  Many  of  these  tables  and 
compilations  will  be  found  in  the  ap- 
pendix to  this  report,  and  can  not  fail 
to  prove  of  value  to  those  interested  in 
the  economic  aspects  of  the  work  of  the 
commission. 

It  is  readily  seen  from  what  has  been 
said  that  the  difficulty  of  comparing 
the  rate  of  earnings  of  contract  miners 
with  the  rate  of  wages  paid  in  other 
occupations  requiring  equal  skill  and 
training  is  serious.  We  do  not  find,  as 
has  been  already  said,  that  testimony 
has  been  adduced  on  either  side  which 
would  permit  satisfactory  comparison 
with  the  rate  of  wages  or  earnings 
paid  in  the  bituminous  coal  fields.  In 
attempting  a comparison  with  other  oc- 
cupations, we  are  met  at  once  with 
the  embarrassing  condition  that  in  such 
occupations  the  ra.te  of  wages  paid  by 
the  day  or  the  month  is  uniform,  and 
the  labor  is  generally  continuous 
throughout  the  year,  while  in  the  work 
of  contract  miners,  who  are  paid  by 
the  yard,  car,  or  ton,  the  number  of 
days  or  hours  represented  by  the  earn- 
ings is  a varying  quantity,  and  the 
number  of  days  in  which  he  is  actually 
employed  at  all,  may  be  much  fewer 
than  the  average  number  of  days  con- 
stituting a year’s  work  in  most  other 
employments. 

We  have  already  said  that  the  per- 
sonal element  constantly  enters  into  the 
case.  The  miner  who  by  special  apti- 
tude or  training  knows  how  to  econo- 
mize powder  and  other  supplies,  and 
who  is  willing  to  devote  two  or  three 
hours  more  a day  than  the  average  to 
his  work,  can  and  does  make  a larger 
income  than  his  fellows  who  fail  in 
these  respects.  Nevertheless,  we  have, 
from  the  abundant  data  furnished  us, 
made  some  comparison  and  have  sought 
to  arrive  at  such  general  results  as 
would  fairly  represent  the  average 
earnings  of  the  contract  miner.  We 
have  endeavored  to  base  our  judgment, 
not  upon  semi-monthly  or  monthly  re- 
turns, but  upon  the  earnings  of  those 
who  have  labored  throughout  the  year, 
only  a part  of  whom  may  have  availed 
themselves  of  all  their  opportunities. 

It  is  impossible  to  be  accurate  in  this 
matter.  The  conditions  that  make  ac- 
curacy impossible  are  inherent  in  the 
nature  of  the  subject  with  which  we 
are  dealing.  Neither  contract  miners 
nor  mine  workers  can  work  the  full 
number  of  days  in  a year  which  it  is 
possible  to  work  in  other  callings;  that 


4,445 

$178,000 

$40.04 

$42,395 

$9.54 

4,360 

150,000 

34.40 

39,705 

9.11 

4,996 

205,000 

41.03 

39,615 

7.93 

4,622 

112,000 

24.23 

35,604 

7.70 

4,712 

90,000 

19.10 

25,491 

5.41 

4,421 

99,637 

22.54 

30,046 

6.80 

4,227 

85,000 

20.11 

24,006 

5.68 

4,718 

100,000 

21.20 

21,852 

4.63 

4,983 

(a) 

63,843 

12.81 

34,301 

1,000,000 

29.15 

363,232 

10.59 

6,557 

300,000 

45.75 

41,446 

6.32 

6,437 

130,000 

20.20 

45,576 

7.(8 

17,473 

525,000 

30.05 

154,064 

8.82 

is  to  say,  owing  to  causes  beyond  the 
control  of  either  miner  or  operator — 
such  as  breakage  of  machinery  inside 
or  outside  the  mine,  disarrangement  of 
pumps,  storms,  repairs,  etc. — opportun- 
ity to  work  in  the  mines,  without  fault 
of  either  operator  or  miner,  does  not 
present  itself  on  each  working  day  of 
the  year.  On  the  other  hand,  for  causes 
within  the  control  of  the  operator  or 
miner,  the  number  of  idle  days  at  the 
mines  is,  or  may  be,  increased. 

Take  for  example  the  year  1901,  a 
year  of  more  than  usual  activity  in 
mining  operations,  the  average  number 
of  days  throughout  the  region  on  which 
work  was  started  was  approximately 
260.  The  number  may  have  been  less. 
So  that  the  yearly  income  of  the  con- 
tract miner,  as  well  as  that  of  the 
others,  is  the  product  of  work  done  in 
parts  of  days  fewer  by  fifty  than  the 
number  of  working  days  in  the  year; 
and  for  the  contract  miner  the  hours 
worked  in  each  of  the  days  in  which  a 
start  is  made,  are  fewer  than  ten,  and 
from  the  evidence  we  feel  warranted  in 
saying  that  they  certainly  do  not  ex- 
ceed, on  the  average,  eight  hours,  there 
being  much  testimony  to  show  that 
many  of  the  miners  go  into  the  mines 
between  6 and  7 in  the  morning  and 
come  out  before  2 o’clock  in  the  after- 
noon. This  is  a fact,  of  course,  to  be 
taken  into  consideration  in  determining 
a fair  rate  of  compensation  or  a fair 
annual  earning. 

We  find  that  the  average  daily  rate 
of  earnings,  as  nearly  as  can  be  ascer- 
tained, does  not  compare  unfavorably 
with  that  in  other  industries  requiring 
substantially  equal  skill  and  training. 
It  is  more  instructive,  of  course,  to 
compare  annual  earnings  of  the  con- 
tract miner  with  the  annual  earnings 
of  those  employed  in  other  occupations. 
We  find  that  these  annual  earnings  of 
contract  miners,  based  upon  returns  for 
the  year  1901,  range  between  $550  and 
$600.  Perhaps  it  would  be  safe  to  put 
the  average  at  $560. 

A representative  illustration  may  be 
taken  from  the  data  submitted  by  the 
Lehigh  Valley  and  the  Lehigh  and 
Wilkes-Barre  Coal  companies,  whose 
work  seems  to  have  been  conducted  as 
regularly  and  systematically  as  any  in 
the  region.  The  reports  of  these  two 
companies  included  only  such  miners  as 
worked  in  their  respective  collieries 
throughout  the  year,  and  whose  names 
appear,  for  some  days  at  least,  on  the 


pay  rolls  of  each  month  in  the  year. 
The  earnings  shown  for  these  miners, 
therefore,  represent  their  total  earnings 
for  the  year,  and  it  is  clear  that  they 
were  not  supplemented  by  work  done 
elsewhere. 

The  Lehigh  Valley  collieries  show 
average  annual  earnings  of  contract 
miners  ranging  from  $667  to  $465,  and 
the  average  daily  earnings  from  $2.81 
to  $2.19.  The  average  annual  earnings 
for  their  seventeen  collieries  is  $568.17, 
and  the  average  daily  earnings  $2.41. 
The  average  number  of  days  on  which 
the  miners  worked  is  236,  which  is  89 
per  cent,  of  the  days  on  which  the  col- 
lieries made  starts. 

The  collieries  of  the  Lehigh  and 
Wilkes-Barre  company  show  average 
annual  earnings  ranging  from  $686  to 
$451,  and  the  average  dally  earnings 
from  $2.74  to  $2.33.  The  average  annual 
earnings  for  all  the  collieries  is  $589,  and 
the  average  daily  earnings  $2.47.  The 
average  number  of  days  worked  by  the 
miners  in  all  the  collieries  of  this  com- 
pany was  238,  which  was  92  per  cent,  of 
the  average  number  of  days  on  which 
the  collieries  made  starts. 

Taking  the  figures  from  which  these 
averages  have  been  made,  we  find  that 
121  miners  who  made  250  starts  in  the 
year  earned  each  $686.08,  which  were 
the  highest  yearly  earnings,  and  that 
103  miners  who  made  185  starts  earned 
each  $451.07,  and  so  throughout  the  list, 
the  miners  who  made  the  larger  income 
working  on  the  greater  number  of  days, 
and  those  who  made  the  smaller  in- 
come working  on  the  less  number  of 
days.  It  is  also  significant  that  those 
who  worked  on  the  greatest  number  of 
days  and  had  the  largest  yearly  income, 
made  the  largest  average  daily  earn- 
ings, and  those  who  worked  on  the  least 
number  of  days  made  the  smallest  aver- 
age daily  earnings. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  results  de- 
rived from  the  statements  of  these  two 
companies  approximate  each  other  close- 
ly in  average  earnings,  in  daily  earn- 
ings, as  well  as  in  the  number  of  days 
worked,  and  in  the  percentage  of  the 
days  on  which  the  collieries  were  in 
operation. 

A great  many  other  tables  have  been 
submitted,  and  a large,  almost  an  em- 
barrassing, mass  of  figures  has  been 
presented  bearing  upon  this  subject, 
but  careful  study  and  scrutiny  of  them 
all,  persuades  us  that  in  the  illustra- 
tions just  given  we  have  made  a selec- 
tion that  will  fairly  show  the  true  con- 
dition in  this  respect.  As  already  said, 
these  figures  are  based  upon  the  large 
operations  of  the  year  1901,  a year  of 
unusual  activity  in  the  anthracite  field. 
Some  preceding  years  do  not  show  so 
great  an  opportunity  for  earning  as  this 
year  afforded.  It  may,  however,  be 
reasonably  expected  that  the  future  de- 
mand for  anthracite  coal  will  keep  the 
industry  at  its  present  point  of  activity 
for  some  time  to  come. 

We  have  also  considered  the  conten- 
tion, and  the  testimony  bearing  upon  it, 
that  the  mining  industry  is  perilous  and 
extra  hazardous,  and  find  that  it  should 
be  classed  as  one  of  the  dangerous  in- 
dustries of  the  country,  ranking  with 
several  of  the  most  dangerous.  The  sta- 
tistics so  far  available  (which  appear 
in  this  report  under  "Hazardous  nature 
of  anthracite  mining”)  do  not  show  a 
greater  hazard  than  ohtains  in  some 
other  occupations,  notably  in  the  fish- 
eries and  in  those  of  switchmen  and 
freight  train  crews  on  our  railroads. 


284 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


Still,  the  requirements  are  exacting,  and 
this  fact  has  been  duly  weighed  by  the 
commission,  in  coming  to  a decision 
upon  the  demand  for  an  increase  in  the 
rate  of  compensation  of  contract  miners. 

Reviewing  the  whole  case,  and  acting 
upon  the  conviction  produced  by  the 
hearing  of  testimony,  and  the  examina- 
tion of  statistics,  the  commission  is  of 
the  opinion  that,  in  view  of  the  inter- 
ruptions incident  to  mining  operations, 
the  increased  cost  of  living,  the  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  number  of  days  during 
the  year  presenting  an  opportunity  for 
work,  and  the  inequalities  of  physical 
conditions  affecting  the  ability  to  earn, 
and  not  overlooking  the  hazardous  na- 
ture of  the  employment,  some  increase 
in  the  rate  of  compensation  to  contract 
miners  should  be  made. 

The  commission,  therefore,  considers, 
and  so  adjudges  and  awards:  That  an 

increase  of  10  per  cent,  over  and  above 
the  rates  paid  in  the  month  of  April, 
1902,  be  paid  to  all  contract  miners  for 
cutting  coal,  yardage,  and  other  work 
for  which  standard  rates  or  allowances 
existed  at  that  time,  from  and  after 
November  1,  1902,  and  during  the  life  of 
this  award;  and  also  to  the  legal  rep- 
resentatives of  such  contract  miners  as 
may  have  died  since  November  1,  1902. 
The  amount  of  increase  under  the 
award  due  for  work  done  between  No- 
vember 1,  1902,  and  April  1,  1903,  to  be 
paid  on  or  before  June  1,  1903. 

II.— DEMAND  FOR  REDUCTION  IN 
HOURS  OF  LABOR. 

The  second  demand  in  the  statement 
of  claim  filed  by  the  miners  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

A reduction  of  20  per  cent,  in  the 
hours  of  labor,  without  any  reduction 
of  earnings,  for  all  employes  paid  by 
the  hour,  day,  or  week. 

Many  of  the  conditions  to  which  we 
have  adverted  as  attending  the  work  of 
contract  miners  also  affect  the  work  of 
the  “company  men,”  or  men  in  and 
about  the  mines,  who  are  paid  on  the 
basis  of  a ten-hour  day,  and  generally 
for  the  hours  actually  worked — that  is 
to  say,  their  hours  of  labor  in  a large 
proportion  of  instances  depend  upon 
what  is  called  breaker  time-;  that  is, 
upon  the  number  of  days  during  each 
of  which  the  mine  or  breaker  is  oper- 
ated for  any  number  of  hours,  however 
few. 

The  employes  in  and  around  the 
mines,  other  than  contract  miners  and 
their  laborers,  constitute  60  per  cent,  of 
all  mine  workers.  Their  occupations  are 
exceedingly  varied,  and  different  classes 
of  labor  are  paid  at  different  rates,  and 
the  annual  earnings  differ  accordingly. 
Under  one  company  these  classes 
amount  to  £\s  many  as  108,  each  class 
receiving  a different  daily  or  monthly 
wage,  and  sometimes  individuals  in  the 
same  class  receiving  a varying  wage, 
due,  no  doubt,  to  their  unequal  skill 
and  capacity. 

The  classification  of  labor  in  and 
around  a mine,  excluding  contract 
miners  and  their  laborers,  includes  the 
following  different  occupations:  Repair 

men,  road  men,  bottom  men,  plane  men, 
switchmen,  car  runners,  spraggers,  fan 
and  door  boys,  oilers,  lamp  men,  pump 
men,  stable  men,  drivers,  loader  bosses, 
chute  starters,  day  miners,  day  labor- 
ers, locomotive  engineers,  inside  en- 
gineers, hoisting  engineers,  firemen,  ma- 
chinists, carpenters,  blacksmiths,  black- 
smiths’ helpers,  breaker  engineers,  jig- 
ger engineers,  platform  men,  timber- 


men,  top  men,  slatepickers,  breaker 
boys,  etc.  The  wages  of  all  of  these 

classes  differ,  although  they  do  not  dif- 
fer widely.  Nevertheless  some  of  them 
require  more  aptitude  and  training  than 
others,  and  deserve  and  receive  a cor- 
respondingly higher  wage  rate.  Hence, 
excluding  machinists,  carpenters,  black- 
smiths, and  those  having  trades  that 
are  common  to  every  community,  it  is 
difficult  to  make  a just  comparison  of 
the  wage  rates  received  by  these  mine 
workers,  with  those  “paid  in  other  occu- 
pations requiring  equal  skill  and  train- 
ing.” 

It  must  be  observed  that  we  are  here 
dealing  with  the  rate  of  wages  and  not 
annual  earnings.  We  have  attempted 
the  comparison,  however,  and  carefully 
considered  the  voluminous  testimony 
adduced  on  this  point,  and  we  do  not 
find  that  the  proposition  we  are  con- 
sidering. to  wit,  that  the  present  rate  of 
wages  of  mine  workers  in  the  anthra- 
cite region  “is  lower  than  is  paid  in 
other  occupations  requiring  equal  skill 
and  training,”  is  supported. 

In  view  of  the  more  permanent  char- 
acter of  the  employment  of  hoisting  en- 
gineers and  other  engineers  and  pump- 
men, who  are  employed  in  positions 
which  are  manned  continuously,  as 
compared  with  other  miners  and  mine 
workers,  the  commission  adjudges  and 
awards: 

That  engineers  who  are  employed  in 
hoisting  water  shall  have  an  increase 
of  10  per  cent,  on  their  earnings  be- 
tween November  1,  1902,  and  April  1, 
1903,  to  be  paid  on  or  before  June  1, 
1903;  and  a like  allowance  shall  be  paid 
to  the  legal  representatives  of  such  em- 
ployes as  may  have  died  since  Novem- 
ber 1,  1902;  and  from  and  after  April  1, 
1903,  and  during  the  life  of  the  award, 
they  shall  have  eight-hour  shifts,  with 
the  same  pay  which  was  effective  in 
April.  1902;  and  where  they  are  now 
working  eight-hour  shifts,  the  eight- 
hour  shifts  shall  be  continued,  and 
these  engineers  shall  have  an  increase 
of  10  per  cent,  on  the  wages  which  were 
effective  in  the  several  positions  in 
April,  1902. 

Hoisting  engineers  and  other  engineers 
and  pumpmen,  other  than  those  em- 
ployed in  hoisting  water,  -who  are  em- 
ployed in  positions  which  are  manned 
continuously,  shall  have  an  increase  of 
10  per  cent,  on  their  earnings  between 
November  1,  1902,  and  April  1.  1903,  to 
be  paid  on  or  before  June  1.  1903;  and 
a like  allowance  shall  be  paid  to  the 
legal  representatives  of  such  employes 
as  may  have  died  since  November  1. 
1902;  and  from  and  after  April  1,  1903, 
and  during  the  life  of  the  award,  they 
shall  have  an  increase  of  5 per  cent,  on 
the  rates  of  wages  which  were  effective 
in  the  several  positions  in  April,  1902; 
and  in  addition  they  shall  be  relieved 
from  duty  on  Sundays,  without  loss  of 
pay,  by  a man  provided  by  the  employer 
to  relieve  them  during  the  hours  of  the 
day  shift. 

The  reason  for  this  award  is  appar- 
ent, when  the  fact  is  considered,  that 
heretofore  many  men  in  these  positions 
have  worked  on  two  shifts  in  the 
twenty-four  hours,  through  the  entire 
week.  Sundays  included,  having  no  ces- 
sation from  work  on  Sunday,  except  by 
the  custom,  by  which  each  of  them  in 
turn  remains  on  duty  twenty-four  hours 
every  other  Sunday,  in  order  to  alter- 
nate the  men  on  the  night  and  day 
shifts. 

The  commission  adjudges  and  awards: 


That  firemen  shall  have  an  increase  of 
10  per  cent,  on  their  earnings  between 
November  1,  1902,  and  April  1,  1903,  to 
be  paid  on  or  before  June  1,  1903;  and  a 
like  allowance  shall  be  paid  to  the  legal 
representatives  of  such  employes  as 
may  have  died  since  November  1.  1902: 
and  from  and  after  April  1,  1903,  and 
during  the  life  of  the  award,  they  shall 
have  eight-hour  shifts,  with  the  same 
wages  per  day,  week,  or  month  as  were 
paid  in  each  position  in  April,  1902. 

Excluding  hoisting  engineers,  pump- 
men, other  engineers,  and  firemen  en- 
gaged where  the  work  is  continued 
through  the  twenty-four  hours,  most  of 
these  employes  to  whom  we  have  just 
referred  as  company  men,  who  are  paid 
by  the  day  or  hour,  can  work  only  when 
the  breaker  or  the  mine  is  in  operation. 
Here,  again,  we  meet  with  the  same  re- 
sult that  we  have  considered  in  the  case 
of  the  contract  miner,  that  the  rate  of 
daily  or  hourly  wages  does  not  compare 
unfavorably  with  that  obtaining  in 
other  similar  industries  requiring  no 
greater  skill  or  training;  but,  owing  to 
the  want  of  continuousness  in  their 
work,  due  to  causes  already  referred  to, 
the  annual  wage  or  income  is.  of  course, 
less  than  that  which  would  obtain  were 
the  work  less  interrupted. 

Another  feature  to  be  considered,  is. 
that  most  of  these  men,  when  they  do 
work,  work  less  than  ten  hours  a day, 
although  they  work  on  the  basis  of  a 
ten-hour  day;  that  is,  taking  breaker 
time  as  the  standard,  in  many  collieries 
they  work  less  than  nine  hours  a day 
on  an  average.  We  find  that  in  the  an- 
thracite region  at  large  the  time  made 
during  the  year  1901,  on  the  basis  of 
ten  hours  to  a day.  was  196  days,  while 
the  days  upon  which  actual  starts  were 
made,  or  during  some  portion  of  which 
work  was  done,  were  25S.  The  general 
average  of  breaker  starts,  the  average 
hours  the  breaker  worked  per  day,  and 
the  average  number  of  working  days  of 
ten  hours  for  the  year  1901  have  been 
given  for  various  companies,  and  the 
detailed  statistics  for  the  different  col- 
lieries of  these  companies  will  be  found 
in  the  appendix. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  are  com- 
paratively few  employes  in  the  anthra- 
cite region  who  are  able  to  obtain  steady 
employment  throughout  the  year.  If  a 
full  day’s  work  could  be  secured  for 
every  day  the  breakers  start,  the  con- 
dition of  the  mine  workers  would  be 
greatly  improved,  and  their  earnings 
would  be  increased  approximately  25 
per  cent,  over  those  made  in  1901.  and 
would  compare  favorably  with  other 
fields  of  employment.  Taking,  for  in- 
stance, the  collieries  of  the  Philadelphia 
and  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  company, 
the  average  number  of  starts  made  by 
the  thirty-seven  breakers  reported  by 
this  company  was  261,  which  would 
have  represented  261  working  days  of 
ten  hours  had  full  time  been  made.  But 
the  average  number  of  hours  per  day 
made  at  these  collieries  was  S.6  and  the 
average  number  of  working  days  of  ten 
hours  was  thus  reduced  to  224.5.  The 
records  of  other  companies  exhibit  con- 
ditions less  favorable. 

In  the  collieries  of  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western,  the  average 
number  of  breaker  starts  was  262,  the 
average  hours  per  start  amounted  to  7.8, 
and  the  average  number  of  working 
days  of  ten  hours  was  205.  The  Lehigh 
and  Wilkes-Barre  Coal  company  aver- 
aged for  eleven  collieries  25S  starts,  with 
7.7  hours  to  a start,  equivalent  to  199 


MINK  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


285 


days  of  ten  hours.  The  Delaware  and 
Hudson  company  reported  for  twenty- 
four  collieries  an  average  of  264  starts, 
with  6.9  hours  to  a start,  or  183  days  of 
ten  hours.  This  statement  for  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  company  includes  the 
Baltimore  and  Delaware  collieries, which 
were  idle  more  than  half  the  year  be- 
cause of  floods.  Excluding  these  two 
collieries,  the  average  breaker  starts 
were  274,  with  seven  hours  to  the  start, 
or  192  days  of  ten  hours.  Six  collieries 
operated  by  the  Temple  Iron  company 
started,  on  an  average,  256  days,  mak- 
ing 7.2  hours  to  each  start,  or  184  ten- 
hour  days.  The  average  number  of  ten- 
hour  days  made  by  the  Scranton  Coal 
company  (nine  collieries),  the  Hillside 
Coal  and  Iron  company  (five  collieries), 
and  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  company 
(ten  collieries),  respectively,  were  172, 
167,  and  159,  the  average  breaker  starts 
being  260,  253,  and  232. 

A study  of  the  tables  shows  compar- 
atively few  instances  in  which  the 
breakers  made  full  10  hours,  while 
from  6 to  9 hour  days  were  the  most 
numerous.  In  many  cases  the  breakers 
made  but  2,  3,  or  4 hours  after  starting 
up,  and  these  conditions,  taken  in  con- 
nection with  the  number  of  days  the 
breakers  are  shut  down  entirely,  seri- 
ously affect  the  earning  capacity  of  the 
employes.  The  commission  recognizes, 
as  already  stated,  that  in  many  cases 
these  interruptions  to  steady  employ- 
ment are  unavoidable.  The  complicat- 
ed machinery  of  the  breakers  engaged 
in  heavy  and  exacting  work,  is  con- 
stantly liable'  to  accidents  which  ap- 
parently no  foresight  can  prevent. 
Shortage  of  railroad  cars  and  other 
causes,  which  in  some  cases  might  be 
prevented,  frequently  necessitate  shut- 
ting down  the  breaker  after  only  a few 
hours’  work,  and  the  greater  part  of 
the  day  is  lost.  As  in  the  case  of  con- 
tract miners,  it  is  also  true  that  sus- 
pensions are  occasionally  due  to  the  ac- 
tion of  the  men  themselves  in  remain- 
ing away  from  work  because  of  some 
holiday,  and  this  has  been  given  due 
weight  in  the  deliberations  of  the  com- 
mission. The  chief  cause  for  com- 
plaint seems  to  be,  however,  in  the  fre- 
quent shut-downs  after  the  work  of 
the  day  has  begun,  and  the  commission 
feels  that  some  remedy  for  this  condi- 
tion is  due  the  men.  The  time  lost  in 
going  to  and  coming  from  his  working 
place,  is  as  great  if  the  laborer  works 
2 hours  as  if  he  works  9 or  10  hours. 

The  tables  in  the  appendix  show  the 
average  rates  of  pay  per  10-hour  day, 
the  average  number  of  10-hour  days 
worked,  and  the  average  annual  earn- 
ings of  all  the  men  and  boys  in  vari- 
ous occupations  in  and  about  the 
mines  who  are  paid  by  the  day,  week, 
or  month,  exclusive  of  superintendents, 
foremen,  and  fire  bosses.  These  “day 
men”  or  “company  men”  so  tabulated 
number  81,856,  and  form  55  per  cent  of 
the  whole  number  of  mine  workers. 
Accurate  records  of  their  earnings  are 
on  the  books  of  the  companies,  and 
there  was  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining 
their  annual  earnings,  except  the  enor- 
mous amount  of  labor  necessary  to 
bring  all  the  data  together.  It  was  not 
practicable  in  all  cases  to  separate  the 
earnings  of  men  and  boys.  A table  in 
the  appendix  shows  these  groups  sep- 
arately for  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
company,  and  may  be  taken  as  repre- 
sentative of  the  distribution  of  men 
and  boys  in  the  various  occupations, 


the  proportion  of  men  and  boys  being 
substantially  the  same  under  all  the 
companies.  The  table  of  earnings  of 
company  men  and  boys,  summarized, 
is  as  follows: 


weight  wherever  practicable,  the  mini- 
mum rate  per  ton  to  be  60  cents  for  a 
legal  ton  of  2.240  pounds,  the  differen- 
tials now  existing  at  the  various  mines 
to  be  maintained.” 


NUMBER  OF  MEN  AND  BOYS  EMPLOYED,  AVERAGE  ANNUAL 
INGS,  AVERAGE  RATE  OF  WAGES  PER  10-HOUR  DAY,  AND 
AGE  10-HOUR  DAYS  WORKED,  FOR  EACH  COAL-MINING 
PANY. 

EARN- 

AVER- 

COM- 

Number 

Average 

Average 

of  men 

Average 

rate  per 

10-hour 

and 

annual 

10-hour 

days 

Name  of  company. 

boys. 

earnings.  day. 

worked. 

Philadelphia  and  Reading 

. 15,843 

$402.37 

$1.66 

242 

Temple  Iron  Co 

791 

384.55 

1.58 

243 

Delaware  and  Hudson  Co. 

6,611 

375.18 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western. 

5,639 

369.24 

Hillside  Coal  and  Iron  Co. 

1,603 

359.53 

1.55 

232 

Scranton  Coal  Co 

2,416 

331.07 

Pennsylvania  Coal  Co 

2,678 

307.44 

1.48 

207 

The  consolidated  average 

for 

the 

To  the 

question 

raised  by 

this  de1- 

foregoing  companies,  embracing  35,581 
men  and  boys,  gives  a general  average 
annual  earning  of  $374.60. 

These  considerations  seems  to  indi- 
cate that  it  is  just  to  reduce  the  hours 
per  day  for  company  men.  This  change, 
owing  to  the  peculiar  conditions  ob- 
taining in  the  premises,  and  already 
discussed,  should  not  result  in  any  de- 
crease in  the  output  of  the  mines. 

The  commission  thinks  it  just,  there- 
fore, that  the  demand  for  a reduction 
in  time  as  to  these  classes  of  employes 
should  be  met,  and  a careful  considera- 
tion of  all  the  facts  bearing  upon  the 
situation  has  brought  it  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  a reduction  of  the  hours  of 
labor  from  10  to  9 would  be  fair  to  both 
employe  and  employer.  This  would 
give  the  employes  whom  we  are  now 
considering  practically  a wage  increase 
of  11 1-9  per  cent.,  for  the  reason  that, 
working  the  number  of  hours  they  now 
work,  which  is  generally  less  than  9 
each  day,  they  would  be  paid  for  hours 
in  which  they  actually  work,  at  the 
hourly  rate  for  a 9-hour  day,  instead  of 
at  that  for  a 10-hour  day.  For  exam- 
ple, in  case  of  the  Delaware  and  Hud- 
son company  the  average  hours  of 
breaker  time  per  start  is  7,  and  the 
company  men  (with  the  exclusions  re- 
ferred to)  who  now  receive,  say  $1.50 
a day  for  10  hours’  work,  would,  under 
the  conditions  of  a 9-hour  day,  receive 
one-ninth,  instead  of  one-tenth,  of 
$1.50  as  their  rate  per  hour  for  7 hours’ 
work,  or  16  2-3  cents  instead  of  15  cents 
per  hour. 

The  commission,  therefore,  considers, 
and  so  adjudges  and  awards:  That  all 
employes  or  company  men,  other  than 
those  for  whom  the  commission  makes 
special  awards,  be  paid  an  increase  of 
10  per  cent,  on  their  earnings  between 
Nov.  1,  1902,  and  April  1,  1903,  to  be 
paid  on  or  before  June  1.  1903;  and  a 
like  allowance  shall  be  paid  to  the  legal 
representatives  of  such  employes  as 
may  have  died  since  Nov.  1.  1902;  and 
that  from  and  after  April  1,  1903,  and 
during  the  ife  of  this  award,  they  shall 
be  paid  on  the  basis  of  a 9-hour  day, 
receiving  therefor  the  same  wages  as 
were  paid  in  April,  1902,  for  a 10-hour 
day.  Overtime  in  excess  of  9 hours  in 
any  day  to  be  paid  at  a proportional 
rate  per  hour. 

III.— DEMAND  FOR  PAYMENT  BY 
WEIGHT. 

The  third  demand  of  the  miners  is 
for  “the  adoption  of  a system  by  which 
coai  shall  be  weighed  and  paid  for  by 


maud  the  commission  has  devoted 
much  thought  and  attention.  It  finds, 
as  is  not  surprising  in  attempts  to 
change  conditions  of  life  or  work  which 
have  been  the  outcome  of  years  of  ex- 
perience and  which  affect  large  num- 
bers of  persons,  that  great  care  is  re- 
quired to  avoid  embarrassing  the  situ- 
ation in  the  endeavor  to  amend  it. 

We  are  met  at  the  outset  with  the 
fact  that  there  has  existed  in  the  state 
of  Pennsylvania  (whose  laws  govern 
the  industry)  since  March  30,  1875,  a 
statute,  which  would  seem,  on  its  face, 
of  controlling  force  in  this  regard.  As 
contained  in  Pepper  & Lewis’s  Digest 
of  the  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  page  3057,’ 
the  statute  is  as  follows: 

“1.  Anthracite  Coal  to  Be  Weighed 
as  Mined. — All  persons,  partnerships, 
associations  and  corporations  engaged 
in  the  mining  of  anthracite  coal  in  this 
commonwealth  shall  provide  and  erect 
at  each  of  their  coal  mines,  or  collier- 
ies, standard  and  lawful  scales  for 
weighing  the  coal  mined  therein,  and 
each  and  every  miner’s  coal  shall'  be 
separated  and  accurately  weighed  on 
said  scale  before  said  coal  is  dumped 
and  taken  from  the  cars  on  which  said 
miner  loaded  it  in  said  mine  or  col- 
liery, and  a separate  and  an  accurate 
account  shall  be  kept  by  all  said  pe  - 
sons,  partnerships,  associations  and 
corporations  of  the  number  of  poun  s 
of  coal  mined  by  each  miner  as  afore- 
said; and  the  miners  in  each  mine 
shall  have  the  right  to  employ,  at  then- 
own  expense,  and  keep  a weighmaster 
at  each  of  said  scales  to  inspect  said 
scales,  and  also  keep  an  account  of  the 
number  of  pounds  of  coal  mined  by 
each  miner;  and  the  miners  at  each 
mine  or  colliery  shall  be  paid  at  the 
rate  of  so  much  per  pound  for  amount 
of  coal  mined  by  them,  and  the  pound 
weight  shall  be  the  basis  from  which  to 
calculate  the  earnings  at  all  mines  or 
collieries:  Provided.  That  the  provis- 

ions of  this  act  shall  apply  only  to 
mines  or  collieries  in  which  the  coal 
mined  as  heretofore  been  paid  for  by 
the  car,  and  that  this  act  shall  not  go 
into  effect  until  sixty  days  after  the 
approval  by  the  governor:  And  provid- 
ed further.  That  if  any  of  said  persons, 
partnerships,  associations  or  corpora- 
tions shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  comply 
with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  he  or 
they  so  neglecting  or  refusing  shall 
forfeit  and  pay,  for  every  day  (of)  said 
neglect  o"  refusal  after  said  sixty  days, 
to  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania 
the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars,  the 


286 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


same  to  be  used  for  and  recovered  in 
an  action  of  debt  in  the  court  of  com- 
mon pleas,  having-  jurisdiction  of  the 
territory  in  which  said  mines  or  col- 
lieries may  be  situate,  the  writs  in  said 
action  to  be  served  on  the  said  persons, 
partnerships,  associations  or  corpora- 
tions, or  the  superintendents,  agents, 
or  clerks  of  said  persons,  partnerships, 
associations  or  corporations  resident 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  said  court: 
And  provided  further.  That  the  provis- 
ions of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  or 
embrace  any  persons,  partnerships,  as- 
sociations or  corporations  that  may  or 
shall  by  any  contract  agree  with  his  or 
their  miners  in  any  of  said  mines  or 
collieries,  otherwise  than  as  is  provided 
in  this  act,  for  the  compensation  of 
mining  the  same,  and  no  penalty  pro- 
vided therein  shall  apply  to  such  per- 
sons, partnerships,  associations  or  cor- 
porations so  contracting  or  agreeing.” 

It  may  seem  strange,  but  from  all  the 
evidence  before  the  commission  the  un- 
doubted fact  appears  to  be,  that  the 
requirements  of  this  law  have  never 
been  complied  with.  It  is  alleged  by 
the  counsel  for  the  operators,  that  they 
have  never  been  applicable,  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  situation  came  within  the 
purview  of  the  last  proviso  of  the  sec- 
tion quoted,  which  exempts  from  its 
provisions  all  cases  where  the  employer 
shall  by  contract  agree  with  his  miners, 
otherwise  than  is  provided  in  the  said 
statute,  for  their  compensation. 

Attention  in  this  connection  should 
be  called  to  a law  approved  June  13, 
1883,  making  the  following  provision: 

“All  individuals,  firms  and  corpora- 
tions engaged  in  mining  coal  in  the 
commonwealth,  who,  instead  of  dump- 
ing all  the  cars  that  come  from  the 
mine  into  a breaker  or  shoots,  shall 
switch  out  one  or  more  of  the  cars  for 
the  purpose  of  examining  them,  and 
determining  the  actual  amount  of  slate 
or  refuse,  by  removing  said  slate  or 
refuse  from  the  car,  and  who  shall,  af- 
ter so  doing,  wilfully  neglect  to  allow 
the  miner  in  full  for  all  clean  coal  left 
after  the  refuse,  dirt  or  slate  is  taken 
out,  at  the  same  rate  paid  at  the  mine 
for  clean  coal,  less  the  actual  expense 
of  removing  said  slate  or  refuse,  (he) 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a misdemean- 
or.” 

Whafthe  present  state  of  the  statute 
law  in  Pennsylvania  may  be,  is  of 
course  a question  for  the  courts  of 
that  state,  and  as  we  have  not  been 
referred  to  any  decision  of  those  courts 
which  passes  upon  this  question,  or 
definitely  upon  that  of  the  constitution- 
ality of  the  law  of  1875;  assuming  it 
to  be  in  force,  the  commission  finds  the 
situation  embarrassing.  It  is  a fact, 
however,  that  during  this  whole  period 
of  twenty-eight  years  since  the  passage 
of  this  act  no  question  seems  to  have 
been  raised  as  to  its  requirements,  or 
complaint  made  that  they  have  been 
violated,  or  the  prescribed  penalty  In- 
voked for  any  alleged  violation  thereof. 
The  inference  is  not  unfairly  drawn 
from  this  state  of  things,  that  the  sit- 
uation with  which  the  statute  purport- 
ed to  deal,  has  been,  on  the  whole,  not 
unsatisfactory  to  either  miners  or  op- 
erators, and  that  the  provisions  of  the 
statute  referred  to  never  attracted  tbe 
notice  of  the  parties  affected,  and  were 
thus  practically  ignored. 

Whether  intentionally  or  not.  the 
contracts,  expressed  or  implied,  for 
compensation  otherwise  than  by 


weight,  have  probably  brought  the 
matter  within  the  terms  of  the  pro- 
viso of  the  law  of  1875,  and  serve  to 
relieve  the  parties  from  the  imputation 
of  having  disregarded  the  obligations 
of  that  law. 

It  was  understood  at  the  hearings, 
that  the  representatives  of  both  sides 
assented  to  the  proposition,  that  the 
agreement  to  abide  by  the  award  or 
this  commission  comes  within  the  pur- 
view of  the  proviso  in  the  law  of  1875, 
referred  to,  and  constitutes  an  agree- 
ment under  that  statute. 

The  situation  being  thus  anomalous, 
the  commission  has  not  been  able  to 
see  clearly  its  way  to  an  attempt  to 
change  it  by  an  obligatory  award.  Any 
measure  of  work  performed,  as  a basis 
for  payment,  must  in  acertain  sense 
be  arbitrary.  Payment  by  the  car,  by 
the  ton,  or  by  the  yard,  is  the  result 
of  an  agreement  between  presumably 
intelligent  parties,  and  all  the  circum- 
stances attending  either  method  are 
matters  for  their  consideration.  If  a 
miners’  ton  of  28  hundred-weight  is 
taken  as  the  basis  of  payment,  the 
price  for  such  ton  is  fixed  with  refer- 
ence to  its  size.  So  of  payment  by  the 
car  or  by  the  yard.  The  suggestion  is 
not  lost  sight  of  that  the  miners’  ton 
of,  say  28  hundredweight,  was  fixed  at 
a time  when  the  sizes  of  coal  below 
pea  were  not  marketable,  and  that 
now  they  are.  This  is  true;  but  there 
may  be  other  considerations,  and  the 
operators  assert  that  there  are,  which 
justice  to  them  requires  should  be 
taken  into  the  account.  For  example, 
lump  and  grate  sizes  are  not  marketed 
now  to  the  extent  that  they  were  form- 
erly, but  are  for  the  most  part  passed 
through  the  breaker  and  reduced  to 
domestic  and  smalled  sizes.  The  cost  of 
this  process  and  the  waste  consequent 
thereon  are  borne  by  the  operator. 

However  this  may  be,  the  commis- 
sion is  not  now  prepared  to  say,  that 
the  change  to  payment  by  weight, 
based  on  a 2.240  pound  ton,  when  the 
price  would  necessarily  be  adjusted  to 
the  number  of  pounds — practically  the 
case  now — would  prove  of  sufficient 
benefit  to  the  miners  to  compensate 
for  the  expense  and  trouble  thereby  im- 
posed upon  operators  now  paying  by 
the  car.  Many  of  the  operators,  in 
order  to  accommodate  themselves  to 
the  change,  would  have  to  reconstruct 
the  breakers,  or  place  the  scales  at 
the  foot  of  the  shaft,  and,  when  there 
is  more  than  one  level  in  the  mine,  at 
the  foot  of  each  level. 

At  the  hearings,  it  was  agreed  by 
counsel  for  the  Philadelphia  and  Read- 
ing Coal  and  Iron  company  and  coun- 
sel for  the  striking  miners,  that  the 
third  demand — the  payment  for  coal 
by  Weight — should  be  withdrawn  so 
far  as  that  company  is  concerned,  as  it 
pays  for  coal  by  the  yard  in  most  of  its 
collieries. 

It  should  not  pass  without  comment 
that  the  demand  for  a change  to  the 
weight  system  is  accompanied  by  the 
condition  that  the  minimum  rate  per 
ton  of  2,240  pounds  should  be  GO  cents, 
the  differentials  now  existing  at  the 
various  mines  to  be  maintained.  This 
demand  could  not  have  been  made  in 
full  understanding  of  its  practical  ef- 
fect, for  coal  is  now  mined  at  a cost 
varying  from  19  to  59  cents  a ton,  the 
miner’s  earnings  being  up  to  the  aver- 
age level.  Sixty  cents  per  ton  of  2,240 
pounds  as  a minimum,  and  the  main- 
tenance of  differentials  now  existing  in 


the  various  mines  on  that  basis,  would 
result  in  many  instances  in  an  increase 
of  300  per  cent,  over  present  cost,  and 
would  throw  into  confusion  the  whole 
matter  of  compensation  and  the  busi- 
ness of  mining. 

On  these,  and  other  grounds,  more 
generally  discussed  elsewhere  in  this  re- 
port, the  commission  refrains  from  fix- 
ing a standard  ton  where  coal  is  paid 
by  weight,  and  from  imposing  upon 
owners  of  collieries  where  coal  now 
mined  is  paid  for  by  the  car  the  obli- 
gation to  pay  by  weight  and  to  make 
the  changes  in  plant  necessary  there- 
for; and  it,  therefore,  adjudges  and 
awards:  That  during  the  life  of  this 

award  the  present  method  of  payment 
for  coal  mined,  shall  be  adhered  to,  un- 
less changed  by  mutual  agreement. 

IV.— DEMAND  FOR  AN  AGREE- 
MENT WITH  UNITED  MINE 
WORKERS  OF  AMERICA. 

The  fourth  and  last  demand  of  the 
miners  is  as  follows: 

The  incorporation  in  an  agreement 
between  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  and  the  anthracite  coal  com- 
panies of  the  wages  which  shall  be 
paid  and  the  conditions  of  employment 
which  shall  obtain,  together  with  satis- 
factory methods  for  the  adjustment  of 
grievances  which  may  arise  from  time 
to  time,  to  the  end  that  strikes  and 
lockouts  may  be  unnecessary. 

The  commission  is  constrained  to  de- 
cline making  an  award,  which  would 
compel  an  agreement  by  the  operators 
with  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  Am- 
erica: for  however  importantly  that 

order  may  have  participated  in  the 
strike  which  was  inaugurated  on  the 
12th  of  May  last,  and  in  its  subsequent 
conduct,  it  is  not  a party  to  this  sub- 
mission. It  was  distinctly  stated  at  the 
meeting  of  the  commission,  that  the 
president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers 
of  America  appeared  before  the  com- 
mission as  the  representative  of  the 
mine  workers  in  the  anthracite  region, 
on  whose  behalf  had  been  made  the 
demands  which  have  since  been  incor- 
porated in  the  formal  statement  rf  clai  n 
filed.  It  is  the  striking  anthracite 
mine  workers,  who  appear  before  the 
commission  as  the  pursuing  party.  It 
is  true  that  they  have  been  represent- 
ed, and  ably  represented,  before  the 
commission  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  but  in  so 
representing  them  he  appeared  “as  the 
representative  of  the  anthracite  coal 
mine  workers,”  and  not  in  his  official 
character  as  president  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America.* 


*At  the  hearing  before  the  commis- 
sion on  October  27.  Mr.  Baer,  represent- 
ing the  Philadelphia  and  Reading  Coal 
and  Iron  company,  made  the  following 
statement. 

“I  am  anxious  to  have  one  thing 
clearly  understood,  because  it  may  lead 
to  complications,  and  it  might  as  well 
be  stated  now  as  at  any  other  time. 
We  have  no  objection  to  Mr.  Mitchell 
appearing  here  to  represent  miners  in 
the  Schuylkill  region;  but  under  the 
terms  of  the  submission  to  you  we  have 
expressly  excluded  the  miners’  organiz- 
ation, because  it  is  a bituminous  organ- 
ization partly,  and  we  can  not  consent 
to  Mr.  Mitchell’s  appearing  here  as  the 
representative  and  as  the  president  of 
that  organization.  So  far  as  he  appears 
here  to  represent  any  of  the  miners  in 
the  anthracite  region  that  are  in  our 
employ,  we  have  no  objection,  and  we 


raise  no  question  about  it;  but  we  do 
not  want  him  to  appear  on  the  record 
as  president  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers, because  we  have  distinctly  stated 
in  the  paper  from  which  you  have  de- 
rived your  authority  to  the  president 
that  we  will  not  deal  with  that  organ- 
ization.” In  reply  to  the  foregoing,  Mr. 
Mitchell  said: 

“As  to  the  matter  of  my  status  before 
the  commission,  I desire  to  say  that  the 
objections  that  have  been  filed  are  not 
involved.  I appear  here  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  anthracite  coal  mine 
workers.” 


Nor  does  the  commission  consider 
that  the  question  of  the  recognition  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America, 
is  within  the  scope  of  the  jurisdiction 
conferred  upon  it  by  the  submission. 

The  first  appearance  of  this  demand, 
so  far  as  this  commission  is  concerned, 
was  at  its  meeting  on  the  27th  of  Oc- 
tober last.  It  is  therefore  evident,  that 
it  was  not  considered  one  of  the  issues, 
when  the  submission  was  suggested  by 
the  operators  in  their  letter  to  the  pub- 
lic and  accepted  by  the  striking  miners 
in  their  convention  of  October  21. 

The  commission  feels,  however,  that 
it  is  incumbent  upon  it  to  give  some 
expression  to  its  views  on  the  general 
question.  From  the  correspondence 
which  passed  between  the  coal  opera- 
tors and  the  officers  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  prior  to  the  strike,  and  which 
has  been  cited  under  the  heading  “His- 
tory and  cause  of  the  strike,”  from  the 
voluminous  testimony  presented  dur- 
ing the  hearings  before  the  commis- 
sion, and  from  the  arguments  of  coun- 
sel and  others,  with  which  the  public 
hearings  closed,  the  commission  is  led 
to  the  conviction,  that  the  question  of 
the  recognition  of  the  union  and  of 
dealing  with  the  mine  workers  through 
their  union,  was  considered  by  both 
operators  and  miners  to  be  one  of  the 
most  important  involved  in  the  con- 
troversy which  culminated  in  the  strike. 

The  order,  as  its  name  implies,  is  an 
organization  to  membership  in  which 
all  workers  who  “produce  or  handle 
coal  or  coke  in  or  around  the  mines” 
are  eligible.  It  claims  a jurisdiction  co- 
extensive with  the  coal  producing  indus- 
try in  America.  Its  purpose,  as  stated 
in  its  constitution  (which  is  printed  in 
full  in  the  appendix),  is  to  unite  the 
mine  workers  and  “ameliorate  their  con- 
ditions by  methods  of  conciliation,  ar- 
bitration, or  strikes.”  The  members  of 
the  union  assert,  that  they  have  a right 
to  form  themselves  into  a union,  choose 
their  officers  and  delegate  to  those  of- 
ficers authority  to  represent  and  speak 
or  bargain  for  them.  They  contend 
that  if  a majority  of  the  employes  of 
a colliery,  or  of  a mining  company,  are 
members  of  the  union,  the  union  has  a 
right  to  negotiate  for  the  services  of 
the  employes  of  that  colliery  or  com- 
pany, in  their  collective  capacity. 

The  operators  assert  that  they  have 
no  objection  to  their  employes  joining 
a union  or  labor  organization.  They 
say  their  refusal  to  recognize  and  deal 
with  the  United  Mine  Workers,  as  at 
present  constituted,  is  based  on  the  fact 
that  the  majority  of  the  members  of 
the  union  are  employed  in  the  bitumin- 
ous coal  fields;  that  the  officers  are 
chiefly  from  those  fields  and  not  well 
acquainted  with  the  work  of  mining 
anthracite  coal;  that  to  deal  with  them 
would  be  dealing  with  an  organization 
which  is  controlled  by  men  engaged  in 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


a rival  industry,  bituminous  and  an- 
thracite coal  mining  being  considered 
by  them  as  competitive  or  rival  indus- 
tries, so  far  as  the  use  of  anthracite 
for  steam-producing  purposes  is  con- 
cerned. The  assertion  is  made  that 
operators  in  bituminous  fields  con- 
tributed liberally  to  the  striking  an- 
thracite miners,  in  order  to  continue 
the  advantages  which  accrued  to  the 
bituminous  coal  industry  from  the  sus- 
pension of  work  in  the  anthracite  re- 
gion; and  it  is  also  alleged  and  proved, 
that  the  local  unions  in  the  anthracite 
fields  are,  to  some  extent,  controlled  by 
the  votes  of  young  boys,  who  are  ad- 
mitted to  membership  and  who  are, 
through  their  youth  and  lack  of  ex- 
perience, wanting  in  judgment,  and,  so 
far,  irresponsible. 

Great  stress  is  laid  upon  the  accusa- 
tion that  the  United  Mine  Workers’ 
union  resorts  to  and  encourages  law- 
lessness and  violence  in  its  efforts  to 
accomplish  its  purposes  or  desires. 

The  demands  of  the  mine  workers 
having  been  made  through  their  union, 
any  adjustment  which  might  have  been 
effected  between  the  operators  and  the 
officers  of  the  organization,  would  have 
carried  with  it  more  or  less  direct 
recognition  of  the  union.  The  agree- 
ment to  sumit  the  disputed  points  to 
the  decision  of  this  commission,  was 
subscribed  to  by  the  president  of  the 
large  anthracite  and  transportation 
companies  on  the  one  side,  and  by  a 
convention  of  anthracite  mine  workers, 
members  of  the  union,  on  the  other. 
The  submission  provides  that  this  com- 
mission shall  determine  the  questions 
at  issue  between  the  several  operators 
and  “their  respective  employes,  whether 
the  latter  belong  to  a union  or  not,” 
and  shall  fix  the  rates  of  wages  and 
hours  and  conditions  of  labor  for  a 
period  of  not  less  than  three  years. 

Whatever  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
commission,  under  the  submission  may 
be,  the  suggestion  of  a working  agree- 
ment between  employers  and  employes 
embodying  the  doctrine  of  collective 
bargaining  is  one  which  the  commission 
believes  contains  many  hopeful  ele- 
ments for  the  adjustment  of  relations 
in  the  mining  regions,  but  it  does  not 
see  that,  under  the  terms  of  the  sub- 
mission from  which  the  powers  of  the 
commission  are  derived,  such  an  agree- 
ment can  be  made  to  take  the  place  of, 
or  become  part  of,  its  award. 

In  the  days  when  the  employer  had 
but  few  employes,  personal  acquain- 
tance and  direct  contact  of  the  em- 
ployer and  the  employe  resulted  in 
mutual  knowledge  of  the  surrounding 
conditions  and  the  desires  of  each.  The 
development  of  the  employers  into 
large  corporations,  has  rendered  such 
personal  contact  and  acquaintance  be- 
tween the  responsible  employer  and 
the  individual  employe,  no  longer  pos- 
sible in  the  old  sense.  The  tendency 
toward  peace  and  good  fellowship  which 
grows  out  of  personal  acquaintance  or 
direct  contact  should  not,  however,  be 
lost  through  this  evolution  to  greater 
combinations.  There  seems  to  be  no 
medium  through  which  to  preserve  it, 
so  natural  and  efficient  as  that  of  an 
organization  of  employes  governed  by 
rules  which  represent  the  will  of  a 
properly  constituted  majority  of  its 
members,  and  officered  by  members 
selected  for  that  purpose,  and  in  whom 
authority  to  administer  the  rules  and 
affairs  of  the  union  and  its  members  is 
vested, 


287 


The  men  employed  in  a certain  line  of 
work  or  branch  of  industry,  have  simi- 
lar feelings,  aspirations,  and  convic- 
tions, the  natural  outgrowth  of  their 
common  work  and  common  trend  or 
application  of  mind.  The  union,  rep- 
resenting their  community  of  interests, 
is  the  logical  result  of  their  community 
of  thought.  It  encourages  calm  and  in- 
telligent consideration  of  matters  of 
common  interest.  In  the  absence  of  a 
union,  the  extremist  gets  a ready  hear- 
ing for  incendiary  appeals  to  prejudice 
or  passion,  when  a grievance,  real  or 
fancied,  of  a general  nature,  presents 
itself  for  consideration. 

The  claim  of  the  worker  that  he  has 
the  same  right  to  join  with  his  fellows 
in  forming  an  organization,  through 
which  to  be  represented,  that  the  stock- 
holder of  the  corporation  has  to  join 
others  in  forming  the  corporation,  and 
to  be  represented  by  its  directors  and 
other  officers,  seems  to  be  thoroughly 
well  founded,  not  only  in  ethics  but 
under  economic  considerations.  Some 
employers  say  to  their  employes:  “We 

do  not  object  to  your  joining  the  union, 
but  we  will  not  recognize  your  union 
nor  deal  with  it  as  representing  you.” 
If  the  union  is  to  be  rendered  impotent, 
and  its  usefulness  is  to  be  nullified  by 
refusing  to  permit  it  to  perform  fhe 
functions  for  which  it  is  created,  and 
for  which  alone  it  exists,  permission  to 
join  it  may  well  be  considered  as  a 
privilege  of  doubtful  value. 

Trades  unionism  is  rapidly  becoming 
a matter  of  business,  and  that  employer 
who  fails  to  give  the  same  careful  at- 
tention to  the  question  of  his  relation 
to  his  labor  or  his  employes,  which  he 
gives  to  the  other  factors  which  enter 
into  the  conduct  of  his  business,  makes 
a mistake,  which  sooner  or  later  he  will 
be  obliged  to  correct.  In  this,  as  in 
other  things,  it  is  much  better  to  start 
right  than  to  make  mistakes  in  start- 
ing, which  necessitates  returning  to 
correct  them.  Experience  shows  that 
the  more  full  the  recognition  given  to 
a trades  union,  the  more  businesslike 
and  responsible  it  becomes.  Through 
dealing  with  business  men  in  business 
matters,  its  more  intelligent,  conserva- 
tive, and  responsible  members  come  to 
the  front  and  gain  general  control  and 
direction  of  its  affairs.  If  the  energy  of 
the  employer  is  directed  to  discourage- 
ment and  repression  of  the  union,  he 
need  not  be  surprised  if  the  more  radic- 
ally inclined  members  are  the  ones  most 
frequently  heard. 

The  commission  agrees  that  a plan, 
under  which  all  questions  of  difference 
between  the  employer  and  his  employes, 
shall  first  be  considered  in  conference 
between  the  employer  or  his  official  rep- 
resentative and  a committee,  chosen  by 
his  employes  from  their  ranks,  is  most 
likely  to  produce  satisfactory  results 
and  harmonious  relations,  and  at  such 
conference  the  employes  should  have 
the  right  to  call  to  their  assistance  such 
representatives  or  agents  as  they  may 
choose,  and  to  have  them  recognized  as 
such. 

In  order  to  be  entitled  to  such  recog- 
nition, the  labor  organization  or  union 
must  give  the  same  recognition  to  the 
rights  of  the  employer  and  of  others, 
which  it  demands  for  itself  and  for  its 
members.  The  worker  has  the  right  to 
quit  or  to  strike  in  conjunction  with  his 
fellows,  when  by  so  doing  he  does  not 
violate  a contract  made  by  or  for  him. 
He  has  neither  right  nor  license  to  de- 
stroy or  to  damage  the  property  of  the 


288 


employer;  neither  has  he  any  right  or 
license  to  intimidate  or  to  use  violence 
against  the  man  who  chooses  to  exer- 
cise his  right  to  work,  nor  to  interfere 
with  those  who  do  not  feel  that  the 
union  offers  the  best  method  for  adjust- 
ing grievances. 

The  union  must  not  undertake  to  as- 
sume, or  to  interfere  with,  the  manage- 
ment of  the  business  of  the  employer. 
It  should  strive  to  make  membership  in 
it  so  valuable  as  to  attract  all  who  are 
eligible,  but  in  its  efforts  to  build  itself 
up,  it  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  those  who  may  think  differently, 
have  certain  rights  guaranteed  them  by 
our  free  government.  However  irritat- 
ing it  may  be  to  see  a man  enjoy  bene- 
fits to  the  securing  of  which  he  refuses 
to  contribute,  either  morally,  or  physic- 
ally, or  financially,  the  fact  that  he  has 
a right  to  dispose  of  his  personal  ser- 
vices as  he  chooses,  can  not  be  ignored. 
The  non-union  man  assumes  the  whole 
responsibility  which  results  from  his 
being  such,  but  his  right  and  privilege 
of  being  a non-union  man  are  sanc- 
tioned in  law  and  morals.  The  rights 
and  privileges  of  non-union  men  are  as 
sacred  to  them  as  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  unionists.  The  contention  that 
a majority  of  the  employes  in  an  in- 
dustry, by  voluntarily  associating  them- 
selves, in  a union,  acquire  authority 
over  those  who  do  not  so  associate 
themselves  is  untenable. 

Those  who  voluntarily  associate  them- 
selves, believe  that  in  their  efforts  to 
improve  conditions,  they  are  working  as 
much  in  the  interest  of  the  unorgan- 
ized as  in  their  own,  and  out  of  this 
grows  the  contention  that  when  a non- 
union man  works  during  a strike,  he 
violates  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
those  associated,  in  efforts  to  better  the 
general  condition,  and  in  aspirations  to 
a higher  standard  of  living.  The  non- 
union man,  who  does  not  believe  that 
the  union  can  accomplish  these  things, 
insists  with  equal  sincerity  that  the 
union  destroys  his  efforts  to  secure  a 
better  standard  of  living,  and  interferes 
with  his  aspirations  for  improvement. 
The  fallacy  of  such  argument  lies  in  the 
use  of  the  analogy  of  state  government, 
under  which  the  minority  acquiesces  in 
the  rule  of  the  majority;  but  govern- 
ment is  the  result  of  organic  law.  with- 
in the  scope  of  which  no  other  govern- 
ment can  assume  authority  to  control 
the  minority.  In  all  acts  of  government 
the  minority  takes  part,  and  when  it  is 
defeated  the  government  becomes  the 
agency  of  all,  not  simply  of  the  major- 
ity. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the 
trade  union  is  a voluntary  social  organ- 
ization, and,  like  any  other  organiza- 
tion, is  subordinate  to  the  laws  of  the 
land  and  can  not  make  rules  or  regu- 
lations in  contravention  thereof.  Yet  it 
at  times  seeks  to  set  itself  up  as  a sep- 
arate and  distinct  governing  agency 
and  to  control  those  who  have  refused 
to  join  its  ranks  and  to  consent  to  its 
government,  and  to  deny  to  them  the 
personal  liberties  which  are  guaranteed 
to  every  citizen  by  the  constitution  a.nd 
laws  of  the  land.  The  analogy,  there- 
fore, is  unsound  and  does  not  apply. 
Abraham  Lincoln  said,  "No  man  is  good 
enough  to  govern  another  man  without 
that  other's  consent."  This  is  as  true 
in  trade  unions  as  elsewhere,  and  not 
until  those  which  fail  to  recognize  this 
truth  abandon  their  attitude  toward 
non-union  men,  and  follow  the  sugges- 
tion made  above — that  is,  to  make  their 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


work  and  their  membership  so  valuable 
and  attractive,  that  all  who  are  eligible 
to  membership  will  come  under  this 
rule — will  they  secure  that  firm  and 
constant  sympathy  of  the  public,  which 
their  general  purposesi  seem  to  demand. 

We  believe  it  is  unwise  and  impolitic, 
to  permit  boys  of  immature  age  and 
judgment  to  participate  in  deciding  the 
policy  and  actions  of  a labor  union. 
We  think  that  no  one  should  have  such 
voice  in  the  affairs  of  a union,  until  he 
has  reached  his  legal  majority.  Those 
affairs  are  momentous  and  are  of  grow- 
ing importance.  They  should  be  directed 
by  men  who  have  a realizing  sense  of 
the  responsibilities  of  life,  both  as  to 
family,  as  to  associates,  and  as  to  soci- 
ety. This  does  not  mean,  of  course,  that 
minors  should  not  belong  to  the  union, 
but  they  should  not  act  as,  nor  vote  for, 
delegates  to  conventions  which  consider 
or  determine  strikes. 

The  present  constitution  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America  does  not  pre- 
sent the  most  inviting  inducements  to 
the  operators  to  enter  into  contractual 
relations  with  it.  Minors  are  represented 
in  conventions  called  for  the  considera- 
tion of  strikes;  while  boys  do  not  go  as 
delegates,  only  one  case  having  been 
noted,  they  send  delegates  to  such  con- 
ventions; and  as  the  boys  in  the  union 
in  the  anthracite  region  constitute  about 
20  per  cent,  of  the  membership,  it  is 
easily  seen  that  their  representatives, 
who  may  be  obliged  to  act  on  instruc- 
tions, may  have  the  balance  of  power, 
and  thus  carry  a vote  for  a strike  when 
the  more  conservative  and  experienced 
members  might  be  opposed  to  it. 

Under  the  recently  amended  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  strikes  must  originate  with 
the  locals  or  districts;*  but  before  final 
action  is  taken  by  any  district  upon 
questions  that  directly  or  indirectly  af- 
fect the  interests  of  the  mine  workers 
of  another  district,  or  that  require  a 
strike  to  determine  such  questions,  the 
president  and  secretary  of  the  aggrieved 
district  must  jointly  prepare,  sign,  and 
forward  to  the  national  president,  a 
written  statement  setting  forth  the 
grievance  complained  of,  the  action  con- 
templated by  the  district,  and  the  rea- 
sons therefor;  and  the  national  presi- 
dent must,  within  five  days  after  the 
receipt  of  such  statement,  either  ap- 
prove or  disapprove  of  the  action  con- 
templated by  the  aggrieved  district, 
such  approval  or  disapproval  to  be 
made  in  writing  and  a copy  forwarded 
to  the  secretary  of  the  complaining  dis- 
trict. If  the  national  president  approve, 
the  district  is  free  to  act;  but  should 
he  disapprove  the  contemplated  strike, 
the  district  may  appeal  to  the  national 
executive  board,  which  must  be  con- 
vened to  consider  such  appeal  within 
five  days  after  its  receipt.  Until  the 
national  president  has  approved  or  the 
national  executive  board  has  sustained 
ihe  appeal,  no  district  is  free  to  enter 
upon  a strike,  unless  it  be  general  or 
national,  ordered  by  a national  con- 
vention. 

These  provisions  give  the  districts  in 
the  anthracite  region  quite  independent 
powers  relative  to  the  initiation  of  a 
strike,  and  their  powers  are  in  a meas- 
ure safeguarded  by  the  necessity  of  first 
securing  the  approval  of  the  national 
president,  or,  in  case  of  his  disapproval, 
of  the  national  executive  board.  The 


♦See  Article  X of  the  constitution, 
printed  in  the  Appendices. 


difficulty  does  not  lie  so  much  in  the 
method  now  pursued  as  in  the  fact  that 
a strike  may  be  undertaken  by  a ma- 
jority vote  of  the  members  of  a district 
convention  called  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  the  strike.  This  is  consid- 
ered a weakness  in  the  present  method. 
Instead  of  a majority  vote  there  should 
be  at  least  a two-thirds  vote  of  all  the 
delegates  in  the  convention  considering 
the  question  of  a strike.  The  vote  should 
be  by  ballot,  and  not  by  voice,  or  show 
of  hands.  An  amendment  to  the  con- 
stitution, making  such  provisions  as 
those  just  indicated,  and  creating  a sep- 
arate anthracite  department,  so  far  as 
strikes  are  concerned,  would  remove 
some  of  the  serious  objections  that  have 
been  urged  by  the  operators. 

An  independent  and  autonomous  or- 
ganization of  the  anthracite  mine  work- 
ers of  Pennsylvania,  however  affiliated, 
in  which  the  objectionable  features 
above  alluded  to  should  be  absent, 
would  deserve  the  recommendation  of 
this  commission,  and,  were  it  within 
the  scope  of  its  jurisdiction,  the  said 
fourth  demand  pf  the  statement  of 
claim,  for  collective  bargaining  and  a 
trade  agreement  might  then  be  reason- 
ably granted. 

The  commission  has  carefully  consid- 
ered and  has  outlined  a plan  for  an 
organization  for  the  execution  of  trade 
agreements  in  the  anthracite  region,  to 
which  thoughtful  attention  is  called, 
and  which  is  printed  in  full  as  an  ap- 
nendix. 

When  under  the  award  the  parties 
have  faithfully  obeyed  its  terms  and 
thus  learned  to  deal  with  each  other,  a 
trade  agreement  between  operators  and 
an  anthracite  mine  workers’  organiza- 
tion may  commend  itself  to  both  sides. 
We  believe  this,  especially  when  it  is 
considered  that  in  other  directions,  and 
in  other  industries,  such  agreements 
have  been  made  and  adhered  to  for 
terms  of  years,  completely  avoiding 
strikes  and  labor  controversies  gener- 
ally. Of  course,  here  and  there  in  the 
bituminous  regions,  these  agreements 
may  not  have  worked  with  perfect  sat- 
isfaction to  both  parties,  and  in  some 
districts  they  have  been  abandoned 
after  a brief  trial,  but  on  the  whole  the 
experience  under  them  in  this  country, 
and  in  England,  testifies  to  their  great 
usefulness  in  preserving  peace  and  har- 
mony. 

The  commission  is  of  opinion  never- 
theless, that  some  satisfactory  method 
for  the  adjustment  of  grievances. which 
may  arise  from  time  to  time,  to  the  end 
that  strikes  and  lockouts  may  be  un- 
necessary, the  demand  for  which  as 
part  of  an  agreement  with  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America  is  made  in 
the  fourth  claim,  just  referred  to. should 
be  imposed  by  its  award  upon  the  par- 
ties to  this  submission. 

It,  accordingly,  hereby  adjudges  and 
awards:  That  any  difficulty  or  dis- 

agreement arising  under  this  award, 
either  as  to  its  interpretation  or  appli- 
cation. or  in  any  way  growing  out  of 
the  relations  of  the  employers  and  em- 
ployed, which  can  not  be  settled  or  ad- 
justed by  consultation  between  the  su- 
perintendent or  manager  of  the  mine 
or  mines,  and  the  miner  or  miners  di- 
rectly interested,  or  is  of  a scope  too 
large  to  be  so  settled  and  adjusted, 
shall  be  referred  to  a permanent  joint 
committee,  to  be  called  a board  of  con- 
ciliation, to  consist  of  six  persons,  ap- 
pointed as  hereinafter  provided.  That 
is  to  say,  if  there  shall  be  a division  of 


the  whole  region  into  three  districts,  In 
each  of  which  there  shall  exist  an  or- 
ganization representing  a majority  of 
the  mine  workers  of  such  district,  one 
of  said  board  of  conciliation  shall  be 
appointed  by  each  of  said  organiza- 
tions, and  three  other  persons  shall  be 
appointed  by  the  operators,  the  opera- 
tors in  each  of  said  districts  appointing 
one  person. 

The  board  of  conciliation  thus  con- 
stituted, shall  take  up  and  consider 
any  question  referred  to  it  as  aforesaid, 
hearing  both  parties  to  the  controversy, 
and  such  evidence  as  may  be  laid  be- 
fore it  by  either  party;  and  any  award 
made  by  a majority  of  such  board  of 
conciliation  shall  be  final  and  binding 
on  all  parties.  If,  however,  the  said 
board  is  unable  to  decide  any  question 
submitted,  or  point  related  thereto,  that 
question  or  point  shall  be  referred  to  an 
umpire,  to  be  appointed,  at  the  request 
of  said  board,  by  one  of  the  circuit 
judges  of  the  Third  judicial  circuit  of 
the  United  States,  whose  decision  shall 
be  final  and  binding  in  the  premises. 

The  membership  of  said  board  shall 
at  all  times  be  kept  complete,  either 
the  operators’  or  miners’  organizations 
having  the  right,  at  any  time  when  a 
controversy  is  not  pending,  to  change 
their  representation  thereon. 

At  all  hearings  before  said  board  the 
parties  may  be  represented  by  such 
person  or  persons  as  they  respectively 
select. 

No  suspension  of  work  shall  take 
place,  by  lockout  or  strike,  pending  the 
adjudication  of  any  matter  so  taken 
up  for  adjustment. 

Certain  matters  outside  the  precise 
terms  of  the  formal  demands  in  the 
statement  of  claim  filed  by  the  mine 
workers  have  been  brought  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  commission,  which  in  its 
opinion,  are  germane  thereto,  and  an 
award  upon  the  same  is  deemed  by  it 
necessary  to  render  more  effective  the 
awards  already  made.  These  matters 
have,  all  of  them,  been  urged  at  the 
hearings  and  in  the  arguments,  and 
have  been  thoroughly  discussed  by  both 
sides  to  the  controversy  as  pertinent 
to  it,  and  as  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  commission,  since  they  relate  to 
the  conditions  alluded  to  in  the  sub- 
mission. 

The  following  classes  of  employes  are 
not  included  within  the  provisions  of 
the  awards  already  made,  to  wit:  Su- 

perintendents, foremen,  assistant  fore- 
men, and  bosses. 

V.— CHECK  WEIGHMEN  AND 
CHECK  DOCKING  BOSSES. 

The  employment  of  check  weighmen 
and  check  docking_  bosses,  would  to  a 
great  extent,  reliev'e  the  difficulties  at- 
tending the  payment  for  coal  on  the 
basis  of  a 2,240-pound  ton  instead  of  by 
the  car,  as  desired  under  the  third  de- 
mand. The  chief  difficulty  of  the  pay- 
ment for  coal  by  the  car,  lies  in  the 
fact,  that  by  such  method  the  oppor- 
tunity exists  for  unfairness  on  the  part 
of  the  operators.  It  is  this  opportunity 
which  creates  irritation  and  suspicion, 
and  it  has  been  the  subject  of  com- 
plaint on  the  part  of  the  miners  for  a 
long  time.  The  commission  has  striven 
most  assiduously  to  discover  some 
means  by  which  the  opportunity  for 
mistakes  or  injustice,  can  be  removed 
and  thus  allay  irritation  and  suspicion, 
but,  as  stated,  when  discussing  the 
third  demand  of  the  miners,  it  has  felt 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


obliged  to  leave  the  methods  of  pay- 
ment as  they  now  exist.  It  does  in- 
dulge the  hope,  however,  that  efforts 
will  be  made  to  secure  some  improved 
method  of  payment  by  mutual  agree- 
ment. 

The  commission  also  feels  that  the 
employment  of  check  weighmen  and 
check  docking  bosses  will  remove,  to  a 
large  degree,  the  suspicions  of  the 
miners.  This  suggestion  is  fortified  by 
much  testimony,  and  by  such  statistics 
as  are  available  relative  to  the  percent- 
age of  dockage,  where  coal  is  paid  for 
by  the  car,  prior  to  the  employment  of 
check  docking  bosses,  and  thereafter. 
The  statistics  of  the  experience  of  three 
companies  which  now  employ  check 
docking  bosses  show  the  following  re- 
sults: Previous  to  the  employment  of 

such  check  docking  bosses  the  percent- 
age of  dockage  in  the  Scranton  Coal 
company  was,  for  one  colliery,  3.11  (of 
the  carloads  of  coal  sent  out  by  the 
miners);  in  another  colliery  4.41,  and 
in  another  6.46.  Subsequent  to  the  em- 
ployment of  such  bosses  the  percentage 
of  dockage  fell  to  1.77,  2.39  and  3.13  re- 
spectively. In  four  collieries  of  the 
Temple  Iron  company,  the  percentage 
previous  to  employment  of  check  dock- 
ing bosses  was,  in  one  colliery,  4.94; 
in  another,  7.10;  in  another,  4.62;,  and 
in  the  fourth,  4.03,  as  against  2.34,  4.43, 
2.08,  and  1.29,  respectively,  after  the 
employment  of  such  bosses.  Under 
the  Dolph  Coal  company  the  dockage 
was  4.95  per  cent,  previous  to  the  em- 
ployment of  a check  docking  boss,  and 
3.78  per  cent,  subsequent  thereto.  These 
figures  show  conclusively  the  satisfac- 
tory results  to  be  gained  by  the  employ- 
ment of  check  docking  bosses.  Such 
employment  has  materially  reduced 
the  amount  of  dockage  charged  to  the 
miners  for  impurities  in  the  coal  they 
send  out. 

In  relation  to  check  weighmen,  who 
are  employed  where  coal  is  paid  for  by 
■weight,  it  is  found  that  there  has  been 
some  increase  in  the  amount  of  coal 
accredited  to  the  miners,  as  against  the 
amount  so  accredited  before  the  em- 
ployment of  check  weighmen.  The  tes- 
timony shows  that  where  check  weigh- 
men are  now  employed,  the  miners  are 
credited  with  a larger  amount  of  coal 
for  w7hich  payment  is  made  than  prior 
to  their  employment.  It  may  be  that 
the  employment  of  check  weighmen  and 
check  docking  bosses  by  the  miners,  in- 
fluenced them  to  greater  effort  to  free 
the  coal  from  impurities. 

Of  course  it  should  be  understood 
that  wherever  coal  is  paid  for  by 
weight  the  company  has  a weighmas- 
ter,  who  certifies  the  amount  of  coal 
to  be  paid  for.  The  check  weighmen 
and  check  docking  bosses  are  inspec- 
tors, employed  by  the  miners  them- 
selvesto  watch  the  weighing  and  dock- 
ing of  coal  in  their  interest. 

The  commission  considers  the  em- 
ployment of  check  weighmen  and  check 
docking  bosses  an  important  matter, 
and,  therefore,  adjudges  and  awards: 
That  whenever  requested  by  a major- 
ity of  the  contract  miners  of  any  col- 
liery, check  weighmen  or  check  dock- 
ing bosses,  or  both,  shall  be  employed. 
The  wages  of  said  check  weighmen  and 
check  docking  bosses  shall  be  fixed, 
collected,  and  paid  by  the  miners,  in 
such  manner  as  the  said  miners  shall 
by  a majority  vote  elect;  and  when  re- 
quested by  a majority  of  said  miners, 
the  operators  shall  pay  the  wages  fixed 


289 


for  check  weighmen  and  check  docking 
bosses,  out  of  deductions  made  propor- 
tionately from  the  earnings  of  the  said 
miners,  on  such  basis  as  the  majority 
of  said  miners  shall  determine. 

VI.— DISTRIBUTION  OF  CARS. 

The  miners  for  years  have  made  com- 
plaint that  the  mine  cars  are  not  equit- 
ably distributed;  that  favoritism  is 
shown  in  the  distribution,  and  that 
from  various  causes  they  do  not  get  a 
sufficient  number  of  cars  to  enable 
them  to  earn,  in  some  cases,  a fair 
day’s  pay.  The  operators  contend  that 
mine  cars  are  distributed  as  fairly  as 
possible.  One  of  the  difficulties  in  this 
matter  lies  in  the  fact,  that  it  is  rare 
that  any  colliery  is  supplied  with  a 
sufficient  number  of  cars  to  keep  all 
the  miners  constantly  employed.  It  Is 
a difficult  matter  to  adjust,  but  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  why  cars  should 
not  be  distributed  uniformly,  so  far  as 
the  equipment  of  cars  will  allow. 

The  commission,  therefore,  adjudges 
and  awards:  That  mine  cars  shall  be 

distributed  among  miners,  w7ho  are  at 
work,  as  uniformly  and  as  equitably  as 
possible,  and  that  there  shall  be  no 
concerted  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
miners  or  mine  workers  of  any  colliery 
or  collieries,  to  limit  the  output  of  the 
mines  or  to  detract  from  the  quality  of 
the  work  performed,  unless  such  limi- 
tation of  output  be  in  conformity  to  an 
agreement  between  an  operator,  and 
an  organization  representing  a major- 
ity of  said  miners  in  his  or  their  em- 
ploy. 

VII.— MINE  CARS. 

A considerable  portion  of  the  testi- 
mony presented  by  the  miners  in  the 
hearings  before  the  commission,  was 
devoted  to  variations  in  the  sizes  of 
the  mine  cars,  much  complaint  being 
made  that  the  cars  had  been  gradually 
increased  in  size,  without  an  equiva- 
lent compensation  to  the  miner.  It 
does  not  seem  to  the  commission  that 
the  latter  charge  was  substantiated, 
though  the  fact  that  several  sizes  of 
cars  are  used  in  some  mines,  with  the 
same  rate  of  pay  for  each,  may  be  con- 
sidered as  a cause  for  suspicion  among 
the  mine  workers.  It  -was  quite  clear- 
ly shown  that  in  some  cases  the  miners 
had  somewhat  exaggerated  ideas  of  the 
amount  of  coal,  by  wreight,  the  mine 
cars  contained.  One  witness,  who  had 
measured  his  car  and  ascertained  its 
cubical  contents,  expressed  the  opinion 
that  the  car  held  4 tons  when  loaded. 
It  in  fact  held  about  2%  tons.  Still, 
the  different  sizes  of  cars  which  are  In 
use  in  some  collieries  cause  confusion 
and  misunderstanding,  and  should  be 
avoided  whenever  possible. 

This  condition  is  somewhat  compli- 
cated by  the  different  prices  paid  Tor 
the  same  cars  in  the  same  collieries. 
Take,  for  example,  the  Maple  Hill  col- 
liery of  the  Philadelphia  and  Reading 
Coal  and  Iron  company.  In  this  case 
only  one  size  of  car  is  used.  It  con- 
tains, water  level,  126  cubic  feet,  and 
with  8 inches  of  topping,  150  cubic  feet. 
Twelve  different  rates  are  paid  for  this 
one  car,  the  rates  varying  from  75  cents 
to  $1.25.  These  differentials  are.  of 
course,  due  to  the  variety  of  conditions 
under  which  the  miners  work.  In  the 
Phoenix  colliery  of  the  same  company 
four  different  cars,  varying  in  size  from 
74.4  to  94  cubic  feet,  are  each  paid  for  at 
different  prices,  ranging  from  70  cents 


290 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


to  $1.05.  This  makes  the  rate  per  ton 
vary  from  30  to  56  cents,  or  nearly  100 
per  cent.  In  the  Mount  Lookout  col- 
liery of  the  Temple  Iron  company,  four 
different  sizes  of  cars  are  used,  vary- 
ing from  80.56  to  93.61  cubic  feet.  Two 
rates  are  paid  for  mining,  98  cents  and 
$1.23  per  car,  according  to  the  work- 
ing conditions.  The  result  is  eight  dif- 
ferent rates  per  ton,  varying  from  42 
to  61  cents. 

Anthracite  coal  varies  considerably  in 
specific  gravity,  and  the  space  occupied 
by  different  grades  and  sizes  ranges 
f-om  36.5  to  43  cubic  feet  per  long  ton. 
For  the  purpose  of  this  report  the  aver- 
age bulk  of  a long  ton  of  anthracite 
coal  is  assumed  to  be  40  cubic  feet. 
The  table  given  in  the  appendix  pre- 
sents a statement  of  the  different  sizes 
cf  cars  used  at  a number  of  collieries 
in  the  anthracite  region,  where  pay- 
ment is  made  by  car.  It  shows  the 
cubical  contents  to  “water  level,”  and 
a’so  with  the  usual  topping  required. 

These  facts  make  it  impossble  for 
the  commission  to  reach  a decision  re- 
lative to  the  size  of  cars,  without  dis- 
turbing to  too  great  an  extent  exist- 
ing conditions:  but  in  order  to  make 
its  award  relative  to  an  increase  of 
pay  effective,  it  adjudges  and  awards: 
That  in  all  cases  where  miners  are 
paid  by  the  car,  the  increase  awarded 
to  the  contract  miners  is  based  upon 
the  cars  in  use,  the  topping  required 
and  the  rates  paid  per  car  which  were 
in  force  on  April  1,  1902.  Any  increase 
in  the  size  of  car,  or  in  the  topping 
required,  shall  be  accompanied  by  a 
proportionate  increase  in  the  rate  paid 
per  car. 

VIII.— SLIDING  SCALE. 

The  attention  of  the  commission  dur- 
ing the  argument  was  called  to  a pro- 
portion for  the  establishments  of  the 
sliding  scale,  as  a basis  of  payment  or 
as  an  adjunct  to  any  general  system 
of  payment  adopted.  It  has  many  at- 
tractive features  and  is,  in  its  essence, 
a profit-sharing  device.  The  testimony 
shows  that  it  was  in  operation  for 
many  years  in  the  Lehigh  and  Schuyl- 
kill  regions.  As  it  existed  in  the  lat- 
ter it  seems  to  have  given  measurable 
satisfaction.  It  appears,  however,  to 
have  had  a confessed  defect,  in  that 
there  was  no  minimum  basis  of  earn- 
ings for  the  miner. 

No  sliding  scale  can  be  of  perman- 
ent value,  unless  there  be  established 
a minimum  basis  of  earnings,  and  a 
minimum  price  of  the  article  on  which 
the  scale  is  constructed.  The  statis- 
t’cs  of  the  prices  of  coal  f.  o.  b.  New 
York  harbor,  have  enabled  the  com- 
mission to  arrive  at  what  seems  to  be 
a just  basis,  so  far  as  price  is  concern- 
ed. while  the  minimum  basis  of  earn- 
ings must  necessarily  be  that  establsh- 
rd  in  the  award. 

The  commission  has  not  thought  it 
wiso  to  adopt  an  arrangement  for  a 
sliding  scale  as  a substitute  for  an  in- 
c'-ease  in  the  compensation  of  mine 
workers,  and  has,  accordingly,  in  its 
preceding  awards,  provided  for  such 
direct  increase  as  in  its  judgment  is 
fair  to  both  operator  and  mine  work- 
er, for  the  period  of  three  years.  There- 
fore, in  prescribing  the  following  slid- 
ing scale,  the  commission  does  not 
do  so  with  the  expectation  that  it 
means  any  immediate  addition  to  the 
increases  already  provided  for  in  the 
earnings  and  wages  of  mine  workers. 


or  that  it  necesarily  means  an  increase 
at  all,  but  with  the  thought  that  if 
in  the  future  the  price  of  coal  should 
become  what  might  be  called  abnorm- 
ally high,  there  might  be  participation 
by  miners  and  mine  warkers  in  the 
profits  derived  from  such  increased 
price. 

The  commission,  therefore,  adjudges 
and  awards:  That  the  following  slid- 

ing scale  of  wages  shall  become  effec- 
tive April  1,  1903,  and  shall  affect  all 
miners  and  mine  workers  included  in 
the  awards  of  the  commission: 

The  wages  fixed  in  the  award  shall  be 
the  basis  of,  and  the  minimum  under, 
the  sliding  scale. 

For  each  increase  of  5 cents  in  the 
average  price  of  white  ash  coal  of 
sizes  above  pea  coal,  sold  at  or  near 
New  York,  between  Perth  Amboy  and 
Edgewater,  and  reported  to  the  Bureau 
of  Anthracite  Coal  Statistics,  above 
$4.50  per  ton  f.  o.  b.,  the  employes 
shall  have  an  increase  of  1 per  cent 
in  their  compensation,  which  shall  con- 
tinue until  a change  in  the  average 
price  of  said  coal  works  a reduction 
or  an  increase  in  said  additional  com- 
pensacion  hereunder;  but  the  rate  of 
compensation  shall  in  no  case  be  less 
than  that  fixed  in  the  award.  That 
is,  when  the  price  of  said  coal  reaches 
$4.53  per  ton,  the  compensation  will 
be  increased  1 per  cent.,  to  continue 
until  the  price  falls  below  $4.55  per  ton, 
when  the  1 per  cent,  increase  will  cease, 
or  until  the  price  reaches  $4.60  per  ton, 
when  an  additional  1 per  cent  will  be 
added,  and  so  on. 

These  average  prices  shall  be  com- 
puted monthly,  by  an  accountant  or 
commissioner,  named  by  one  of  the  cir- 
cuit judges  of  the  third  judicial  circuit 
of  the  United  States,  and  paid  by  the 
coal  operators,  such  compensation  as 
the  appointing  judge  may  fix,  which 
compensation  shall  be  distributed 
among  the  operators  in  proportion  to 
the  tonnage  of  each  mine. 

In  order  that  the  basis  may  be  laid 
for  the  successful  workings  of  the  slid- 
ing scale  provided  herein,  it  is  also 
adjudged  and  awarded:  That  all  coal- 

operating  companies  file  at  once  with 
the  United  States  Commissioner  of 
Labor,  a certified  statement  of  the  rates 
of  compensation  paid  in  each  occupa- 
tion known  in  their  companies,  as  they 
existed  April  1,  1902. 

IX.— DISCRIMINATION,  LAWLESS- 
NESS, BOYCOTTING,  AND  BLACK- 
LISTING. 

In  the  letter  of  the  operators,  which 
forms  the  basis  of  the  submission  of 
issue  to  this  commission,  the  signatory 
parties  state  “that  they  are  not  dis- 
criminating against  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  but  they  insist  that  the  min- 
ers’ union  shall  not  discriminate  against 
or  refuse  to  work  with  nonunion  men.” 
The  testimony  proved  that  some  dis- 
crimination, on  the  part  of  both  oper- 
ators and  union  men,  was  made,  before 
and  after  the  strike  was  inaugurated 
and  even,  to  some  extent,  after  it  had 
been  declared  off.  It  is  difficult,  of 
course,  to  determine  just  how  far  the 
employers  declined  to  re-employ  miners, 
simply  because  they  were  members  of 
the  union,  or  just  how  far  the  miners 
themselves  refused  to  work  with  non- 
union men.  In  the  above-mentioned  let- 
ter it  is  stated  that  the  understanding 
is  that  "the  miners  will  return  to  work 
and  cease  all  interference  with  or  per- 


secution of  any  nonunion  men  who  are 
working  or  shall  hereafter  work.” 

The  testimony  does  not  reveal  any 
considerable  amount  of  interference  on 
the  part  of  members  of  the  union  with 
nonunion  men,  after  work  had  been 
resumed — that  is,  after  the  23d  of  Oc- 
tober. Nevertheless,  it  is  evident  to  the 
commission  that  discrimination,  wheth- 
er on  the  part  of  the  operators  or  of 
any  of  their  employes,  is  a serious  men- 
ance  to  the  discipline  of  the  mines. 
There  is  no  industry  in  which  discipline 
is  more  essential  than  in  mining.  The 
hazardous  nature  of  the  work  calls  for 
the  best  discipline;  it  is  to  the  interest 
of  the  employer  and  the  employe  to 
see  that  it  is  maintained.  Each  should 
aid  the  other,  not  only  in  establishing 
the  best  methods  for  securing  disci- 
pline, but  in  efforts  to  preserve  it.  Dis- 
crimination and  interference  weaken  all 
discipline. 

Although  some  reflections  on  the 
general  subject  have  been  made,  no 
discussion  of  the  conditions  prevailing 
in  the  anthracite  region  during  the 
continuance  of  the  late  strike  would 
be  adequate  that  did  not  fully  deal 
with  the  disorder  and  lawlessness  which 
existed  to  some  extent  over  the  whole 
region,  and  throughout  the  whole 
period..  It  is  admitted  that  this  dis- 
order and  lawlessness  was  incident  to 
the  strike.  Its  history  is  stained  with 
a record  of  riot  and  bloodshed,  cul- 
minating in  three  murders,  unprovok- 
ed save  by  the  fact  that  two  of  the 
victims  were  asserting  their  right  to 
work,  and  another,  as  an  officer  of  the 
law.  who  performing  his  duty,  in  at- 
tempting to  preserve  the  peace.  Men 
who  chose  to  be  employed,  or  who  re- 
mained at  work,  were  assailed  and 
threatened,  and  they  and  their  families 
terrorized  and  intimidated.  In  several 
instances  the  houses  of  such  workmen 
were  dynamited,  or  othcrwice  assault- 
ed. and  the  lives  of  unoffending  women 
and  children  put  in  jeopardy.  The  arm- 
ed guards,  employed  to  protect  the  col- 
lieries and  the  men  who  worked  them, 
appear  not  to  have  been  an  unneces- 
sary precaution,  and  the  governor  of 
the  state  was,  as  the  evidence  before 
the  commission  shows,  justified  in 
calling  out  the  citizen  soldiery  of  the 
commonwealth  to  preserve  its  peace 
and  vindicate  its  laws. 

The  resentment  expressed  by  many 
p?rsons  connected  with  the  strike,  at 
the  presence  of  the  armed  guards  and 
militia  of  the  state,  does  not  argue  well 
for  the  peaceable  character  or  pur- 
poses of  such  persons.  No  peaceable 
or  law-abiding  citizen  has  reason  to 
fear  or  resent  the  presence  of  either. 

It  is  true  that  exaggerated  accounts 
of  the  disturbances  were  published,  and 
there  was  testimony  from  reputable 
witnesses,  tending  to  minimize  them, 
and  vouching  for  the  good  order  of  the 
communities  in  which  such  witnesses 
lived;  but  these  were  mainly  in  the 
localities  where  the  operators  made  no 
attempt  to  work  the  collieries.  It  is 
also  true,  and  justice  requires  the 
statement,  that  the  leaders  of  the  or- 
ganization which  began  and  conducted 
the  strike,  and  notably  its  president, 
condemned  all  violence,  and  exhorted 
their  followers  to  sobriety  and  moder- 
ation. It  wou’d  seem,  however,  that  the 
subordinate  local  organizations  and 
their  leaders,  were  not  so  amenable  to 
such  counsels  as  to  prevent  the  re- 
grettable occurrences  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made. 


In  making  this  arraignment,  we  are 
not  unmindful  of  what  appears  to  be 
the  fact,  that  the  mine  workers  of 
the  anthracite  region  are,  in  the  main, 
well-disposed  and  good  citizens  of  the 
commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
that  it  is  in  the  power  of  a minority  of 
the  less  responsible  men  and  boys,  to- 
gether with  the  idle  and  vicious,  un- 
less properly  restrained,  to  destroy  the 
peace  and  good  order  of  any  commun- 
ity. Absence  of  protest  and  of  active 
resistance  on  the  part  of  the  better 
element,  means  encouragement  and 
license  to  the  class  above  described. 
It  has  been  declared  by  some  persons, 
that  this  state  of  things  is  no  more 
than  was  to  be  expected  in  communities 
where  such  large^  numbers  of  men  and 
boys  were  idle  for  so  long  a time.  If 
this  be  so,  and  it  is  not  necessary  for 
our  present  purpose  to  traverse  the 
truth  of  this  statement,  it  affects  seri- 
ously the  responsibility  of  those  lead- 
ers of  a labor  movement  who  are,  in 
the  main,  responsible  for  the  inaugura- 
tion and  conduct  of  a strike. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  without 
threats,  intimidation,  and  violence  to- 
ward those  who  would  otherwise  be 
willing  to  remain  at  work,  or  take  the 
p’aces  of  those  who  had  ceased  to  work, 
the  coercion  of  employers,  which  a 
strike  always  contemplates,  would  be 
less  potent  in  compelling  acquiescence 
in  its  demands.  This  is  the  danger 
point  of  the  whole  matter.  The  law, 
which  governs  all  citizens  of  a free 
country  alike,  can  make  no  exceptions. 
The  beneficence  of  labor  unions  is  ac- 
knowledged. Their  development,  as  we 
view  it,  has  been  one  of  real,  though 
of  slow  and  intermittent,  progress  to  the 
betterment  of  labor  conditions  and  to 
improvement  in  the  relations  between 
employer  and  employed.  All  combin- 
ations of  men,  however,  to  achieve  a 
common  purpose  have  potencies  for 
evil.  Such  combinations  are  more  than 
mere  aggregations  of  the  rights  and 
powers  of  the  individuals  composing 
them.  They  become  new  and  powerful 
entities  and  factors  for  good  or  ill, 
according  to  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom 
with  which  they  are  managed  and  con- 
trolled. The  strike  ordered  by  a trade 
union,  which  compasses  no  more  than 
the  enforcement  of  demands  previous- 
ly made,  for  the  supposed  benefit  of 
its  members,  by  the  cessation  from 
work  in  the  event  that  those  demands 
are  not  complied  with,  trangresses  no 
law  of  a free  society,  and,  whether 
wise  or  unwise  in  inception  and  pur- 
pose, is  an  exercise  of  no  more  than 
the  legal  rights  that  belong  collectively 
or  individually  to  its  members. 

It  is  true  that  the  stress  thus  placed 
upon  employers,  may  constitute  a kind 
of  coercion,  resulting,  in  some  cases,  in 
an  enforced  compliance  with  the  de- 
mands of  the  association  or  union. 
Such  coercion,  however,  is  not  illegal 
and  does  not  come  within  the  condem- 
nation of  the  law.  It  is  the  indirect 
consequence  of  the  legal  exercise  of  the 
right  to  work,  or  to  cease  to  work,  be- 
longing to  all  men. 

But  a strike  set  on  foot  with  the  view 
to  the  accomplishment  of  its  purpose 
by  intimidation  or  violence,  exercised 
against  those  who  choose  to  remain  at 
work  violates  the  law  from  the  begin- 
ning. Where,  however,  the  strike  itself 
is  separable  from  the  illegal  violence 
and  intimidation,  which  in  many  cases 
accompany  it,  the  legal  -liability  for 
such  violence  and  intimidation  rests 


mink  strike  commission 


alone  upon  the  individuals  who  com- 
mit the  act,  and  those  who  aid,  encour- 
age, and  abet  them.  Though  no  illegal- 
ity of  purpose  is  imputable  to  those  in- 
augurating a strike,  its  existence,  if  it 
involve  large  numbers  of  men  in  a 
single  community,  tends,  of  itself,  to 
produce  disorder  and  lawlessness. 

As  has  been  said,  the  idle  and  vicious, 
who  are  in  no  way  connected  with  the 
purpose  or  object  of  the  strike,  often 
unite  with  the  less  orderly  of  the  strik- 
ers themselves,  in  creating  the  deplor- 
able scenes  of  violence  and  terror,  which 
have  all  too  often  characterized  the 
otherwise  laudable  efforts  of  organized 
labor  to  improve  its  conditions.  Surely 
this  tendency  to  disorder  and  violation 
of  law  imposes  upon  the  organization, 
which  begins  and  conducts  a movement 
of  such  importance,  a grave  responsi- 
bility. It  has,  by  its  voluntary  act,  cre- 
ated dangers,  and  should,  tnerefore,  be 
vigilant  in  averting  them.  It  has,  by 
the  concerted  action  of  many  aroused 
passions,  which,  uncontrolled,  threaten 
the  public  peace;  it,  therefore,  owes 
society  the  duty  of  exerting  its  power  to 
check  and  confine  these  passions  with- 
in the  bounds  of  reason  and  of  law. 
Such  organizations  should  be  the  power- 
ful coadjutors  of  government  in  main- 
taining the  peace  and  upholding  the 
law  Only  so  can  they  deservp  and  at- 
tain the  respect  due  to  good  citizenship, 
and  only  so  can  they  accomplish  the 
beneficent  ends,  which  for  the  most  part 
they  were  created  to  attain. 

A labor  or  other  organization,  whose 
purpose  can  only  be  accomplished  by 
the  violation  of  law  and  order  of  soci- 
ety, has  no  right  to  exist. 

The  right  to  remain  at  work  where 
others  have  ceased  to  work,  or  to  en- 
gage anew  in  work  which  others  have 
abandoned,  is  part  of  the  personal  lib- 
erty of  a citizen,  that  can  never  be  sur- 
rendered, and  every'  infringement  there- 
of merits,  and  should  receive  the  stern 
denouncement  of  the  law.  All  govern- 
ment implies  restraint,  and  it  is  not  less, 
but  more,  necessary  in  self-governed 
communities,  than  in  others,  to  compel 
restraint  of  the  passions  of  men  which 
make  for  disorder  and  lawlessness.  Our 
language  is  the  language  of  a free  peo- 
ple, and  fails  to  furnish  any  form  of 
speech  by  which  the  right  of  a citizen 
to  work  when  he  pleases,  for  whom  he 
pleases,  and  on  what  terms  he  pleases, 
can  be  successfully  denied.  The  com- 
mon sense  of  our  people,  as  well  as  the 
common  law,  forbids  that  this  right 
should  be  assailed  with  impunity.  It  is 
vain  to  say,  that  the  man  who  remains 
at  work  while  others  cease  to  work,  or 
takes  the  place  of  one  who  has  aban- 
doned his  work,  helps  to  defeat  the  as- 
pirations of  men  who  seek  to  obtain 
better  recompense  for  their  labor,  and 
better  conditions  of  life.  Approval  of 
the  object  of  a strike,  or  persuasion  that 
its  purpose  is  high  and  noble,  can  not 
sanction  an  attempt  to  destroy  the  right 
of  others  to  a different  opinion  in  this 
respect,  or  to  interfere  with  their  con- 
duct in  choosing  to  work  upon  what 
terms  and  at  what  time  and  for  whom 
it  may  please  them  so  to  do. 

The  right  thus  to  work  can  not  be 
made  to  depend  upon  the  approval  or 
disapproval  of  the  personal  character 
and  conduct  of  those  who  claim  to  ex- 
ercise this  right.  If  this  were  other- 
wise, then  those  who  remain  at  work 
might,  if  they  were  in  the  majority, 
have  both  the  right  and  power  to  pre- 


2!' 1 


vent  others,  who  choose  to  cease  to 
work,  from  so  doing. 

This  all  seems  too  plain  for  argument. 
Common  sense  and  common  law  alike 
denounce  the  conduct  of  those  who  in- 
terfere with  this  fundamental  right  of 
the  citizen.  The  assertion  of  the  right 
seems  trite  and  commonplace,  but  that 
land  is  blessed  where  the  maxims  of 
liberty  are  commonplaces. 

It  also  becomes  our  duty  to  condemn 
another  less  violent,  but  not  less  repre- 
hensible, form  of  attack  upon  those 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  citizen,  which 
the  public  opinion  of  civilized  countries 
recognize  and  protects.  The  right  and 
liberty  to  pursue  a lawful  calling  and 
to  lead  a peaceable  life,  free  from  moles- 
tation or  attack,  concerns  the  comfort 
and  happiness  of  all  men,  and  the  de- 
nial of  them  means  destruction  of  one 
of  the  greatest,  if  not  the  greatest,  of 
the  benefits  which  the  social  organiza- 
tion confers.  What  is  popularly  known 
as  the  boycott*  (a  word  of  evil  ormn 
and  unhappy  origin)  is  a form  of  co- 
ercion by  which  a combination  of  many 
persons,  seek  to  vi'ork  their  will  upon  a 
single  person,  or  upon  a few'  persons,  by 
compelling  others  to  abstain  from  social 
or  beneficial  business  intercourse  with 
such  person  or  persons.  Carried  to  the 
extent  sometimes  practiced  in  aid  of  a 
strike,  and  as  was  in  some  instances 
practiced  in  connection  wdth  the  late 
anthracite  strike,  it  is  a cruel  weapon 
of  aggression,  and  its  use  immoral  and 
anti-social. 

To  say  this  is  not  to  deny  the  legal 
right  of  any  man  or  set  of  men,  volun- 
tarily to  refrain  from  social  intercourse 
or  business  relations  w'ith  any  persons 
whom  he  or  they,  with  or  without  good 
reason,  dislike.  This  may  sometimes  be 
unchristian,  but  it  is  not  illegal.  But 
when  it  is  a concerted  purpose  of  a 
number  of  persons  not  only  to  abstain 
themselves  from  such  intercourse,  but 
to  render  the  life  of  their  victim  miser- 
able by  persuading  and  intimidating 
others  so  to  refrain,  such  purpose  is  a 
malicious  one,  and  the  concerted  at- 
tempt to  accomplish  it  is  a conspiracy 
at  common  law,  and  merits  and  should 
receive  the  punishment  due  to  such  a 
crime. 

Examples  of  such  “secondary  boy- 
cotts” are  not  W'anting  in  the  record  of 
the  case  before  the  commission.  A young 
schoolmistress,  of  intelligence,  charac- 
ter, and  attainments,  was  so  boycotted, 
and  her  dismissal  from  employment 
compelled  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
a brother,  not  living  in  her  immediate 
family,  chose  to  work  contrary  to  the 
wishes  and  will  of  the  striking  miners. 
A lad,  about  15  years  old,  emp’oyed  in 
a drug  store,  wras  discharged,  owing  to 
threats  made  to  his  employer  by  a dele- 
gation of  the  strikers,  on  behalf  of 
their  organization,  for  the  reason  that 
his  father  had  chosen  to  return  to  work 
before  the  strike  was  ended.  In  several 
instances  tradesmen  w'ere  threatened 
with  a boycott — that  is,  that  all  con- 
nected with  the  strikers  would  withhold 
from  them  their  custom,  and  persuade 
others  to  do  so,  if  they  continued  to  fur- 


*The  following-named  states  have 
laws  which  may  fairly  be  construed  as 
prohibiting  boycotting;  Alabama,  Con- 
necticut, Florida,  Georgia,  Maine,  Mas- 
sachusetts, Michigan,  Minnesota.  Miss- 
issippi, Missouri.  New  Hampshire.  New 
York,  North  Dakota,  Oklahoma.  Orege->. 
South  Dakota,  Texas,  Utah,  Vermont, 
and  Wisconsin. 


292 


proceedings  op  the  anthracite 


nish  the  necessaries  of  life  to  the  fam- 
ilies of  certain  workmen,  who  had  come 
under  the  ban  of  the  displeasure  of  the 
striking  organizations.  This  was  carry- 
ing the  boycott  to  an  extent  which  was 
condemned  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  president 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  Amer- 
ica, in  his  testimony  before  the  com- 
mission, and  which  certainly  deserves 
the  reprobation  of  all  thoughtful  and 
law-abiding  citizens.  Many  other  in- 
stances of  boycott  are  disclosed  in  the 
record  of  this  case. 

In  social  disturbances  of  the  kind 
with  which  we  are  dealing,  the  tempta- 
tion to  resort  to  this  weapon  oftentimes 
becomes  strong,  but  is  none  the  less  to 
be  resisted.  It  is  an  attempt  of  many, 
by  concerted  action,  to  work  their  will 
upon  another  who  has  exercised  his 
legal  right  to  differ  with  them  in  opin- 
ion and  in  conduct.  It  is  tyranny,  pure 
and  simple,  and  as  such  is  hateful,  no 
matter  whether  attempted  to  be  exer- 
cised by  few  or  by  many,  by  operators 
or  by  workmen,  and  no  society  that 
tolerates  or  condones  it  can  justly  call 
itself  free. 

Some  weak  attempt  was  made  at  the 
hearings  to  justify  the  boycotts  we  have 
been  describing,  by  confusing  them  with 
what  might  be  called,  for  convenience 
sake,  the  primary  boycott,  which  con- 
sists merely  in  the  voluntary  absten- 
tion of  one  or  many  persons  from  social 
or  business  relations  with  one  whom 
they  dislike.  This  indeed  might  amount 
to  a conspiracy  at  law,  if  the  ingredi- 
ent of  malicious  purpose  and  concerted 
action  to  accomplish  it  were  present, 
but  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  prac- 
tical distinction  between  such  a boycott 
and  the  one  we  have  been  reprobating 
is  clear. 

It  was  attempted  to  defend  the  boy- 
cott, by  calling  the  contest  between  em- 
ployers and  employes  a war  between 
capital  and  labor,  and  pursuing  the  an- 
alogies of  the  word,  to  justify  thereby 
the  cruelty  and  illegality  of  conduct  on 
the  part  of  those  conducting  a strike. 
The  analogy  is  not  apt,  and  the  argu- 
ment founded  upon  it  is  fallacious. 
There  is  only  one  war-making  power 
recognized  by  our  institutions,  and  that 
is  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  the  states  in  subordination  there- 
to, when  repelling  invasion  or  suppress- 
ing domestic  violence.  War  between 
citizens  is  not  to  be  tolerated,  and  can 
not,  in  the  proper  sense,  exist.  If  at- 
tempted, it  is  unlawful,  and  Is  to  be  put 
down  by  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
state  and  nation. 

The  practices,  which  we  are  condemn- 
ing, would  be  outside  the  pale  of  civil- 
ized war.  In  civilized  warfare,  women 
and  children  and  the  defenseless  are 
safe  from  attack,  and  a code  of  honor 
controls  the  parties  to  such  warfare 
which  cries  out  against  the  boycott  we 
have  in  view.  Cruel  and  cowardly  are 
terms  not  too  severe  by  which  to  char- 
acterize it. 

Closely  allied  to  the  boycott  is  the 
blacklist,  by  which  employers  of  labor 
sometimes  prevent  the  employment  by 
others,  of  men  whom  they  have  dis- 
charged. In  other  words,  it  is  a com- 
bination among  employers  not  to  em- 
ploy workmen,  discharged  by  any  of  the 
members  of  said  combination.  This  sys- 
tem is  as  reprehensible  and  as  cruel  as 
the  boycott,  and  should  be  frowned 
down  by  all  humane  men.  Happily 
there  was  little  evidence  of  its  exist- 
ence among  the  operators  in  the  anthra- 
cite region,  one  case  only  having  been 


distinctly  proved,  and  in  that  the  re- 
fusal to  employ  the  tabooed  men  con- 
tinued but  for  a short  time.  Wherever 
it  is  practiced  to  the  extent  of  being 
founded  upon  an  agreement  or  con- 
certed action,  it,  too,  comes  within  the 
definition  of  the  crime  of  conspiracy, 
and  as  such  should  be  punished.*  There 
is  also  a civil  remedy  open  to  one  who 
suffers  from  having  been  blacklisted,  in 
an  action  against  those  who  are  a party 
to  it,  to  recover  damages  compensatory 
of  the  injury  received. 

The  commission  is  fully  aware  of  the 
difficulties  inherent  in  this  subject.  It  is 
a psychological  matter  beyond  rules 
and  awards  unless  the  lawmaking 
power  of  the  community  fix  a penalty 
upon  boycotting  and  blacklisting.  Even 
then  the  various  degrees  to  which  the 
two  can  be  carried  elude  the  enforce- 
ment of  a statute.  The  commission  is 
of  opinion,  however,  that  there  should 
be  a positive  utterance  on  its  part  rela- 
tive to  discrimination,  interference,  boy- 
cotting, and  blacklisting,  and  this  opin- 
ion it  has  put  in  the  form  of  an  award, 
as  follows: 

It  is  adjudged  and  awarded:  That 

no  person  shall  be  refused  employment, 
or  in  any  way  discriminated  against, 
on  account  of  membership  or  non-mem- 
bership in  any  labor  organiaztion;  and 
that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination 
against,  or  interference  with,  any  em- 
ploye who  is  not  a member  of  any  la- 
bor organization  by  members  of  such 
organization. 

X.— DIRECT  PAYMENT. 

It  is  the  general  custom  with  the 
companies  in  the  anthracite  regions, 
to  pay  a miner  the  total  amount  of 
money  due  him  for  mining  coal,  the 
miner  paying  his  laborer  or  laborers 
the  amount  due  them.  A contract 
miner,  whose  earnings  may  be  practic- 
ally what  he  sees  fit  to  make  them, 
within  proper  limits,  engages  his  own 
laborer  and  blows  down  or  cuts  the 
coal,  while  the  laborer  loads  it  into  the 
mine  cars,  he  being  paid  therefor,  on 
an  average,  something  over  one-third 
of  the  gross  earnings  of  the  miner.  At 
the  end  of  two  weeks  the  money  due 
the  miner  is  handed  him  in  an  enve- 
lope, with  a statement  of  the  amount  of 
coal  mined,  allowances,  etc.,  and  the 
miner  pays  his  laborer  or  laborers. 

It  is  contended  that  on  pay  day  the 
laborers,  at  times,  meet  at  a neighbor- 
ing saloon,  and  the  miners  there  pay 
them,  the  excuse  being  that  they  are 
not  able  to  make  change,  and  so  se- 
cure the  assistance  of  the  saloon  keep- 
er. This  may  or  may  not  be  a grievous 
complaint,  but  it  could  be  entirely  over- 
come by  the  operators  paying  the  min- 
ers’ laborers  direct  and  at  the  pay  of- 
fice. The  commission,  therefore  ad- 
judges and  awards:  That  all  contract 

miners  be  required  to  furnish  within  a 
reasonable  time  before  each  pay  day, 
a statement  of  the  amount  of  money 
due  from  them  to  their  laborers,  and 
such  sums  shall  be  deducted  from  the 
amount  due  the  contract  miner  and 
paid  directly  to  each  laborer  by  he 
company.  All  employes  when  paid 


*The  United  States  and  the  following- 
named  states  have  laws  which  may 
fairly  be  construed  as  prohibiting  black- 
listing: Georgia,  Michigan,  New  Hamp- 
shire, New  York,  Oklahoma,  Oregon, 
Rhode  Island,  and  South  Dakota. 


shall  be  furnished  with  an  itemized 
statement  of  account. 

XI.— LIFE  AND  CONDITIONS  OF 
THE  AWARDS. 

The  commission  further  adjudges 
and  awards:  That  the  awards  herein 

made  shall  continue  in  force  until 
March  31,  1906;  and  that  any  employe, 
or  group  of  employes,  violating  ary  of 
the  provisions  thereof,  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  reasonable  discipline  by  the  em- 
ployer; and  further,  that  the  violation 
of  any  provision  of  these  awards, 
either  by  employer  or  employes,  shall 
not  invalidate  any  of  the  provisions 
thereof. 


RECAPITULATION  OF  AWARDS. 


I.  The  commission  adjudges  and 

awards:  That  an  increase  of  10  per 

cent,  over  and  above  the  rates  paid 
in  the  month  of  April,  1902,  be  paid  to 
all  contract  miners  for  cutting  coal, 
yardage,  and  other  work  for  which 
standard  rates’  or  allowances  existed 
at  that  time,  from  and  after  November 
1,  1902,  and  during  the  life  of  this 

award;  and  also  to  the  legal  represen- 
tatives of  such  contract  miners  as  may 
have  died  since  November  1,  1902.  The 
amount  of  increase  under  the  award 
due  for  work  done  between  November 
1,  1902,  and  April  1,  1903,  to  be  paid  on 
or  before  June  1,  1903. 

II.  The  commission  adjudges  and 

awards:  That  engineers  who  are  em- 

ployed in  hoisting  water  shall  have  an 
increase  of  10  per  cent,  on  their  earn- 
ings betewen  November  1,  1902,  and 
April  1,  1903,  to  be  paid  on  or  before 
June  1,  1903;  and  a like  allowance  shall 
be  paid  to  the  legal  representatives  of 
such  employes  as  may  have  died  since 
November  1,  1902;  and  from  and  after 
April  1,  1903,  and  during  the  life  of  the 
award,  they  shall  have  S-hour  shifts, 
with  the  same  pay  which  was  effective 
in  April,  1902;  and  where  they  are  now 
wrorking  S-hour  shifts,  the  S-hour  shifts 
shall  be  continued,  and  these  engineers 
shall  have  an  increase  of  10  per  cent, 
on  the  w’ages  which  were  effective  in 
the  several  positions  in  April,  1902. 

Hoisting  engineers  and  other  engi- 
neers and  pumpmen,  other  than  those 
employed  in  hoisting  w'ater,  who  are 
employed  in  positions  which  are 
manned  continuously,  shall  have  an 
increase  of  10  per  cent,  on  their  earn- 
ings between  November  1,  1902,  and 
April  1,  1903,  to  be  paid  on  or  before 
June  1,  1903;  and  a like  allowance  shall 
be  paid  to  the  legal  representatives  of 
such  employes  as  may  have  died  since 
November  1,  1902;  and  from  and  after 
April  1,  1903,  and  during  the  life  of  the 
aw'ard  they  shall  have  an  increase  of 
5 per  cent,  on  the  rates  of  wages  which 
w'ere  effective  in  the  several  positions 
in  April,  1902;  and  in  addition  they 
shall  be  relieved  from  duty  on  Sun- 
days. without  loss  of  pay,  by  a man 
provided  by  the  employer  to  relieve 
them  during  the  hours  of  the  day  shift. 

The  commission  adjudges  and 
awards:  That  firemen  shall  have  an 

increase  of  10  per  cent,  on  their  earn- 
ings between  November  1,  1902,  and 
April  1,  1903,  to  be  paid  on  or  before 
June  1,  1903;  and  a like  allowance  shall 
be  paid  to  the  legal  representatives  of 
such  employes  as  may  have  died  since 
November  1,  1903,  and  during  the  life  of 


the  award,  they  shall  have  8-hour 
shifts,  with  the  same  wages  per  day, 
week,  or  month  as  were  paid  in  each 
position  in  April,  1902. 

The  commission  adjudges  and 
awards:  That  all  employes  or  company 

men,  other  than  those  for  whom  the 
commission  makes  special  awards,  he 
paid  an  increase  of  10  per  cent,  on  their 
earnings  between  November  1,  1902,  and 
April  1,  1903,  to  be  paid  on  or  before 
June  1,  1903;  and  a like  allowance  shall 
be  paid  to  the  legal  representatives  of 
such  employes  as  may  have  died  since 
Nov.  1,  1902;  and  that  from  and  after 
April  1,  1903,  and  during  the  life  of  this 
award,  they  shall  be  paid  on  the  basis 
of  a 9-hour  day,  receiving  therefor  the 
same  wages  as  were  paid  in  April,  1902, 
for  a 10-hour  day.  Overtime  in  excess 
of  9 hours  in  any  day  to  be  paid  at  a 
proportional  rate  per  hoyr. 

III.  The  commission  adjudges  and 

awards:  That  during  the  life  of  this 

award  the  present  methods  of  payment 
for  coal  mined,  shall  be  adhered  to,  un- 
less changed  by  mutual  agreement. 

IV.  The  commission  adjudges  and 
awards;  That  any  difficulty  or  dis- 
agreement arising  under  this  award, 
either  as  to  its  interpretation  or  ap- 
plication, or  in  any  way  growing  out 
of  the  relations  of  the  employers  and 
employed,  which  cannot  be  settled  or 
adjusted  by  consultation  between  the 
superintendent  or  manager  of  the  mine 
or  mines,  and  the  miner  or  miners  di- 
rectly interested,  or  is  of  a scope  too 
large  to  be  so  settled  or  adjusted,  shall 
be  referred  to  a permanent  joint  com- 
mittee, to  be  called  a board  of  con- 
ciliation, to  consist  of  six  persons,  ap- 
pointed as  hereinafter  provided.  That 
is  to  say.  if  there  shall  be  a division  of 
the  whole  region  into  three  districts, 
in  each  of  which  there  shall  exist  an 
organization  representing  a majority  of 
the  mine  workers  by  each  of  said  or- 
ganizations, and  three  other  persons 
shall  be  appointed  by  the  operators,  the 
operators  in  each  of  said  districts  ap- 
pointing one  person. 

The  board  of  conciliation  thus  con- 
stituted, shall  take  up  and  consider  any 
question  referred  to  it  as  aforesaid, 
hearing  both  parties  to  the  controversy, 
and  such  evidence  as  may  be  laid  be- 
fore it  by  either  party;  and  any  award 
made  by  a majority  of  such  board  of 
conciliation  shall  be  final  and  binding 
on  all  parties.  If,  however,  the  said 
board  is  unable  to  decide  any  question 
submitted,  or  point  related  thereto,  that 
question  or  point  shall  be  referred  to  an 
umpire,  to  be  appointed,  at  the  request 
of  said  board,  by  one  of  the  circuit 
judges  of  the  third  judicial  circuit  of 
the  United  States,  whose  decision  shall 
be  final  and  binding  in  the  premises. 

The  membership  of  said  board  shall 
at  all  times  be  kept  complete,  either 
the  operators’  or  miners’  organizations 
having  the  right,  at  any  time  when  a 
controversy  is  not  pending,  to  change 
their  representation  thereon. 

At  all  hearings  before  said  board  the 
parties  may  be  represented  by  such 
person  or  persons  as  they  may  respect- 
ively select. 

V.  The  Commission  adjudges  and 
awards:  That  whenever  requested  by  a 
majority  of  the  contract  miners  of  any 
colliery,  check  weighmen  or  check 
docking  bosses,  or  both,  shall  be  em- 
ployed. The  wages  of  said  check  weigh- 
men and  check  docking  bosses  shall  be 
fixed,  collected,  and  paid  by  the  min- 
ers in  such  manner  as  the  said  miners 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


shall  by  a majority  vote  elect;  and 
when  requested  by  a majority  of  said 
miners,  the  operators  shall  pay  the 
wages  fixed  for  check  weighmen  and 
check  docking  bosses,  out  of  deductions 
made  proportionately  from  the  earnings 
of  the  said  miners,  on  such  basis  as 
the  majority  of  said  miners  shall  de- 
termine. 

VI.  The  commission  adjudges  and 

awards:  That  mine  cars  shall  be  dis- 

tributed among  miners,  who  are  at 
work,  as  uniformly  and  as  equitably 
as  possible,  and  that  there  shall  be  no 
concerted  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
miners  or  mine  workers  of  any  colliery 
or  collieries,  to  limit  the  output  of  the 
mines  or  to  detract  from  the  quality  of 
the  work  performed,  unless  such  limit- 
ation of  output  be  in  conformity  to  an 
agreement  between  an  operator  or 
operators,  and  an  organization  repre- 
senting a majority  of  said  miners  in 
his  or  their  employ. 

VII.  The  commission  adjudges  and 

awards:  That  in  all  cases  where  min- 

ers are  paid  by  the  car,  the  increase 
awarded  to  the  contract  miners  is  based 
upon  the  cars  in  use,  the  topping  re- 
quired, and  the  rates  paid  per  car 
which  were  in  force  on  April  1,  1902. 
Any  increase  in  the  size  of  car.  or  in 
the  topping  required,  shall  be  accom- 
panied by  a proportionate  increase  in 
the  rate  paid  per  car. 

VIII.  The  commission  adjudges  and 

awards:  That  the  following  sliding 

scale  of  wages  shall  become  effective 
April  1,  1903,  and  shall  affect  all  miners 
and  mine  workers  included  in  the 
awards  of  the  commission: 

The  wages  fixed  in  the  awards  shall 
be  the  basis  of,  and  the  minimum  un- 
der, the  sliding  scale. 

For  each  increase  of  5 cents  in  tne 
average  price  of  white  ash  coal  of  sizes 
above  pea  coal,  sold  at  or  near  New 
York,  between  Perth  Amboy  and  Edge- 
water,  and  reported  to  the  bureau  of 
anthracite  coal  statistics,  above  $4.50 
per  ton  f.  o.  b.,  the  employes  shall  have 
an  increase  of  1 per  cent,  in  their  corn- 
■ pensation,  which  shall  continue  until  a 
change  in  the  average  price  of  said  coni 
works  a reduction  or  an  increase  in 
said  additional  compensation  hereun- 
der; but  the  rate  of  compensation  shall 
in  no  case  be  less  than  that  fixed  in 
the  award.  That  is,  when  the  price  of 
said  coal  reaches  $4.55  per  ton,  the  com- 
pensation will  be  increased  1 per  cent, 
to  continue  until  the  price  falls  below 
$4.55  per  ton,  when  the  1 per  cent,  in- 
crease will  cease,  or  until  the  price 
reaches  $4.60  per  ton,  when  an  addi- 
tional 1 per  cent,  will  be  added,  and 
so  on. 

These  average  prices  shall  be  comput- 
ed monthly,  by  an  accountant  or  com- 
missioner, named  by  one  of  the  circuit 
judges  of  the  Third  judicial  circuit  of 
the  United  States,  and  paid  by  the  coal 
operators,  such  compensation  as  tbe 
appointing  judge  may  fix,  which  com- 
pensation shall  be  distributed  among 
the  operators  in  proportion  to  the  ton- 
nage of  each  mine. 

In  order  that  the  basis  may  be  laid 
for  the  successful  working  of  the  slid- 
ing scale  provided  herein,  it  is  also  ad- 
judged and  awarded:  That  all  coal- 

operating  companies  file  at  once  with 
the  United  States  commissioner  of  La- 
bor, a certified  statement  of  the  rates 
of  compensation  paid  in  each  occupa- 
tion known  in  their  companies,  as  they 
existed  April  1,  1902. 

IX.  The  commission  adjudges  and 
awards:  That  no  person  shall  be  re- 


293 


fused  employment,  or  in  any  way  dis- 
criminated against,  on  account  of  mem- 
bership or  non-membership  in  any  la- 
bor orgnaization;  and  that  there  shall 
be  no  discrimination  against,  or  inter- 
ference with,  any  employe  who  is  not 
a member  of  any  labor  organization 
by  members  of  such  organization. 

X.  The  commission  adjudges  and 

awards:  That  all  contract  miners  be 

required  to  furnish  within  a reason- 
able time  before  each  pay  day,  a state- 
ment of  the  amount  of  money  due 
from  them  to  their  laborers,  and  such 
sums  shall  be  deducted  from  the 
amount  due  the  contract  miner,  and 
paid  directly  to  each  laborer  by  the 
company.  All  employes  when  paid 
shall  be  furnished  with  an  itemized 
statement  of  account. 

XI.  The  commission  adjudges  and 

awards:  That  the  awards  herein  made 

shall  continue  in  force  until  March  31. 
1906;  and  that  any  employe,  or  group 
of  employes,  violating  any  of  the  pro- 
visions thereof,  shall  be  subject  to  rea- 
sonable discipline  by  the  employer; 
and,  further,  that  the  violation  of  any 
provision  of  these  awards,  either  by 
employer  or  employes,  shall  not  in- 
validate any  of  the  provisions  thereof. 


GENERAL  RECOMMENDATIONS. 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LAW  AND 
PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY. 

The  commission  thinks  that  the  prac- 
tice of  employing  deputi  s,  upon  the 
request  and  at  the  expense  of  employ- 
ers, instead  of  throwing  the  whole  re 
ponsibility  of  preserving  peace  and  pro- 
tecting property  upon  the  county  and 
state  officers,  is  one  of  doubtful  wis- 
dom and  perhaps  tends  to  invite  con- 
flicts between  such  officers  and  idle 
men,  rather  than  to  avert  them.  Peace 
and  order  should  be  maintained  at  any 
cost,  but  should  be  maintained  by  reg- 
ularly appointed  and  responsible  offi- 
cers and  deputies,  at  the  expense  of 
the  public,  and  re-enforced  as  strongly 
as  may  be  necessary  bv  public  author- 
ities, rather  than  by  guards  hired  by 
corporations  or  individuals.  The  fact 
that  deputies  are,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  the  employes  of  one  of  the 
parties,  usually  works  injury  to  the 
cause  in  which  they  are  engaged — that 
of  preserving  peace  and  protecting 
property 

The  employment  of  what  are  known 
as  “coal  and  iron  policemen,”  by  the 
coal  mining  companies,  while  a neces- 
sity as  things  are,  militates  against 
the  very  purpose  for  which  they  are 
employed.  Although  the  testimony  be- 
fore the  commission  proved  that,  as  a 
whole,  the  coal  and  iron  policemen  were 
men  of  good  character,  there  were  a 
sufficient  number  of  bad  characters, 
taken  from  cities,  to  oiscredlt  the  ef- 
fort of  the  whole  body.  The  employ- 
ment of  this  body  of  police  is  author- 
ized by  law,  but  they  are  really  the 
employes  of  the  coal  companies,  and 
thus  do  not  secure  the  respect  and 
obedience  to  which  officers  of  the  law 
are  entitled.  Their  presence  is  an  ir- 
ritant, and  many  of  the  disturbances 
in  the  coal  regions  during  the  late 
strike  grew  out  of  their  presence. 
Should  this  matter  be  remedied  by  leg- 
islation, so  that  the  laws  could  be  en- 
forced and  peace  preserved  by  a regu- 
larly constituted  constabulary,  ap- 
pointed and  paid  by  the  county  or 
state,  the  commission  believes  that 


294 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE 


much  of  the  disorder  which  accompa- 
nies strikes  would  be  avoided. 

EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHILDREN. 

Another  subject,  not  a matter  of  sub- 
mission, but  concerning  which  much 
testimony  was  offered,  is  that  of  the 
employment  of  children.  Boys  are  em- 
ployed in  the  breakers.  The  attention 
of  the  commission  was  called  to  the 
painful  fact  that  in  other  industries 
boys  and  girls  are  employed,  and  work 
long  hours  both  day  and  night.  While 
the  law  prescribes  the  ages  at  which 
boys  may  be  employed  in  and  around 
the  mines,  and  at  which  children  may 
be  employed  in  factories  or  mills,  it 
appears,  from  the  evidence,  that  the 
age  is  not  placed  sufficiently  high.  In- 
fancy should  be  protected  against  the 
physical  and  moral  influences  of  such 
employment,  and  there  ought  to  be  a 
more  rigid  enforcement  of  the  laws 
which  now  exist. 

COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION. 

Your  letter  of  October  23,  1902,  stated 
that  you  had  appointed  the  undersigned 
“a  commission  to  inquire  into,  con- 
sider, and  pass  upon  the  questions  in 
controversy  in  connection  with  the 
strike  in  the  anthracite  region,  and  the 
causes  out  of  which  the  controversy 
arose,”  and  also  enjoined  upon  us  to 
make  the  “endeavor  to  establish  the  re- 
lations between  the  employers  and  the 
wage  workers  in  the  anthracite  fields 
on  a just  and  permanent  basis,  and,  as 
far  as  possible,  to  do  away  with  any 
causes  for  the  recurrence  of  such  diffi- 
culties as  those  which  you  have  been 
called  in  to  settle.” 

We  believe  that  the  awards  we  have 
made,  and  which  are  herewith  sub- 
mitted, will  accomplish,  certainly  dur- 
ing their  life,  the  high  aims  contem- 
plated in  your  letter.  Faithful  adher- 
ence to  the  terms  of  the  awards  can 
not  fail  to  accomplish  this:  but  in  or- 
der to  secure  the  public  against  long- 
continued  controversy,  and  to  make  a 
coal  famine  or  a famine  in  any  other 
direction  practically  impossible,  we 
deem  it  essential  that  there  should  b? 
some  authority  to  conduct  just  such 
investigations  as  that  you  called  upon 
us  to  make. 

There  are  some  who  have  urged  the 
commission  to  recommend  the  adoption 
of  compulsory  arbitration,  so  called,  as 
the  means  of  securing  this  desired  re- 
suit,  but  we  can  not  see  our  way  to 
recommend  any  such  drastic  measure. 
We  do  not  believe  that  in  the  United 
States  such  a system  would  meet  with 
general  approval  or  with  success. 
Apart  from  the  apparent  lack  of  con- 
stitutional power  to  enact  laws  pro- 
viding for  compulsory  arbitration,  our 
industries  are  too  vast  and  too  compli- 
cated for  the  practical  application  of 
such  a system. 

We  do  believe,  however,  that  the 
state  and  federal  governments  should 
provide  the  machinery  for  what  may 
be  called  the  compulsory  investigation 
of  controversies  when  they  arise.  The 
states  can  do  this,  whatever  the  nature 
of  the  controversy.  The  federal  gov- 
ernment can  resort  to  some  such  meas- 
ure when  difficulties  arise  by  reason  of 
which  the  transportation  of  the  United 
States  mails,  the  operations,  civil  or 
military,  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  or  the  free  and  regular 
movement  of  commerce  among  the  sev- 
eral states  and  with  foreign  nations, 
are  interrupted  or  directly  affected,  or 
are  threatened  with  being  interrupted 
or  affected. 


The  federal  government  has  already 
recognized  the  propriety  of  action  un- 
der the  circumstances  just  cited,  as  ev- 
idenced in  the  act  creating  boards  of 
arbitration  or  commission  for  settling 
controversies  and  differences  between 
railroad  corporations  and  other  com- 
mon carriers  engaged  in  interstate  or 
territorial  transportation  of  property 
or  persons,  and  their  employes,  ap- 
proved Oct.  1,  1888.  Under  that  act 
when  such  controversies  and  differ- 
ences arose,  the  president  was  author- 
ized, on  the  application  of  either  of  the 
contestants,  to  appoint  a commission 
of  three  members  to  investigate  the 
causes  surrounding  the  difficulty.  That 
act  was  cumbersome  in  its  provisions 
and  was  repealed  by  an  act  appiuved 
June  1,  1898,  entitled,  "An  act  concern- 
ing carriers  engaged  in  Interstate  com- 
merce and  their  employes.” 

The  provisions  of  the  act  first  cited 
were  applied  at  the  time  of  the  Chi- 
cago strike,  so  called,  in  1894.  There 
has  been  no  resort  to  the  act  of  June 
1,  1898,  which  simply  provides,  so  far 
as  the  federal  government  is  concerned, 
that  the  chairman  of  the  interstate 
commerce  commission  and  the  com- 
missioner of  labor  shall,  upon  the 
terms  of  the  act,  with  all  practicable 
expedition  put  themselves  in  communi- 
cation with  the  parties  to  such  contro- 
versy, and  shall  use  their  best  efforts, 
by  mediation  and  conciliation,  to  set- 
tle the  same  amicably;  and  that  if  such 
effort  shall  be  unsuccessful,  they  shall 
at  once  endeavor  to  bring  about  an  ar- 
bitration of  the  controversy  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  the  act. 
The  duties  of  these  officials  then  cease, 
except  where  there  is  no  choice  of  a 
referee  by  the  parties  selected  as  arbi- 
trators. Then  the  commissioners 
named  have  power  to  designate  the 
third  arbitrator.  Thus  the  principle  of 
federal  interference,  through  investi- 
gation, has  been  established  by  these 
acts  of  congress. 

We  print  in  the  appendix  a paper  by 
by  Charles  Francis  Adams,  read  before 
the  American  Civfic  Federation  in  New 
York  December  8,1902,  in  which  he  out- 
lined a proposed  “act  to  provide  for  the 
investigation  of  controversies  affect- 
ing interstate  commerce,  and  for  other 
purposes.”  This  proposition  is  that  the 
president,  whenever  within  any  state 
or  states,  territory  or  territories  of  the 
United  States  a controversy  concerning 
wages,  hours  of  labor,  or  conditions 
of  employment  shall  arise  between  an 
employer  and  the  employes  or  associa- 
tion or  combination  of  employes  of  an 
employer,  by  which  the  free  and  regu- 
lar movement  of  commerce  among  the 
several  states  and  with  foreign  nations, 
is  in  his  judgment  interrupted  or  di- 
rectly affected,  or  threatened  with  be- 
ing so  interrupted  or  directly  affected, 
shall,  in  his  discretion,  inquire  into  the 
same  and  investigate  the  causes  there- 
of, and  to  this  end  may  appoint  a spe- 
cial commisison,  not  exceeding  seven  in 
number,  of  persons  in  his  judgment 
specially  qualified  to  conduct  such  an 
suggested  have  been  brought  into  ex- 
investigation. The  proposed  act  con- 
sists of  eleven  sections,  and  makes  pro- 
vision for  all  methods  of  procedure, 
rules,  etc.,  requisite  for  its  being  car- 
ried into  effect. 

Wtih  a few  slight  modifications  such 
an  act  would,  in  ihe  opinion  of  the  com- 
mission, meet  just  such  an  emergency 
as  that  which  arose  last  summer  in  the 
anthracite  coal  regions,  and  we  submit 
It  to  you  for  your  consideration.  A 


similar  act  might  be  passed  by  the 
states  not  having  the  machinery  for 
the  rigid  investigation  of  labor  trou- 
bles. Some  of  the  state  boards  of  ar- 
bitration have  the  right  to  make  such 
investigation,  but  others  are  limited  to 
the  consideration  of  controversies  when 
voluntarily  submitted  to  them  by  the 
parties  concerned. 

These  suggestions  are  re-enforced 
through  the  consideration  of  a matter, 
somewhat  without  the  scope  of  our  in- 
quiries, but  which  during  their  prog- 
ress has  pressed  itself  upon  the  atten- 
tion of  the  commission,  and  that  is  the 
apparent  lack  of  a sense  of  responsibil- 
ity to  the  public  at  large,  manifested 
by  both  operators  and  mine  workers, 
in  allowing  the  controversy  betweeen 
them  to  go  to  such  an  extent  as  to  en- 
tail upon  millions  of  their  fellow-citi- 
zens the  cruel  suffering  of  a fuel  fam- 
ine. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  commission  the 
questions  involved  in  this  controversy 
were  not  of  such  importance  as  to 
justify  forcing  upon  the  public  conse- 
quences so  fraught  with  danger  to  the 
peace  and  good  order  as  well  as  to  the 
well-being  and  comfort  of  society.  If 
neither  party  could  have  made  conces- 
sions to  avoid  a result  so  serious,  an 
arbitration  would  have  prevented  the 
extremity  which  was  reached.  Un- 
doubtedly, the  proposition  that  the  men 
who  own  property  and  carry  on  the 
business  must  control  it,  is  generally 
true,  and  its  maintenance  is  necessary 
to  the  political  and  economical  wel- 
fare of  society;  but  it  is  also  true  that 
where  a business  is  of  such  magnitude, 
and  its  physical  conditions  are  such  as 
to  constitute  a natural  monopoly,  it 
is  affected  with  a public  interest  that 
cannot  be  ignored  by  those  who  con- 
trol it. 

The  commission  trusts  that  when  the 
time  during  which  its  awards  are  to 
remain  in  force  shall  have  elapsed,  the 
relations  of  operators  and  employes  will 
have  so  far  improved,  as  to  make  im- 
possible such  a condition  as  existed 
throughout  the  country  in  consequence 
of  the  strike  in  the  anthracite  region. 
Nevertheless  the  public  has  the  right, 
when  controversies  like  that  of  last 
year  cause  it  serious  loss  and  suffering, 
to  know  all  the  facts,  and  so  be  able 
to  fix  the  responsibility.  In  order  to 
do  this  power  must  be  given  the  au- 
thorized representatives  of  the  people 
to  act  for  them  by  conducting  a thor- 
ough investigation  into  all  the  matters 
involved  in  the  controversy.  This,  of 
course,  applies  only  to  those  cases 
where  great  public  interests  are  at 
stake.  It  should  not  apply  to  petty  dif- 
ficulties or  local  strikes. 

The  chief  benefit  to  be  derived  from 
the  suggestion  herein  made  lies  in 
placing  the  real  facts  and  the  respon- 
sibility for  such  condition  authoritative- 
ly before  the  people,  that  public  opin- 
ion may  crystalize  and  make  its  power 
felt.  Could  such  a commission  as  that 
istence  in  June  last,  we  believe  that 
the  coal  famine  might  have  been  avert- 
ed— certainly  the  suffering  and  depriva- 
tion might  have  been  greatly  mitigat- 
ed. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

GEO.  GRAY. 

CARROLL  D.  WRIGHT. 

JOHN  M.  WILSON. 

JOHN  L.  SPALDING. 

EDGAR  E.  CLARK. 

THOMAS  H.  WATKINS. 

EDWARD  W.  PARKER. 


MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


295 


APPENDICES  TO  THE  REPORT. 

[ From  The  Scranton.  Tribune,  April  27,  1003.] 


The  appendices  to  the  main  report  of 
the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  commission, 
jost  issued,  number  ten  and  comprise: 

A.  The  names  of  parties  to  the  neai- 
ings  and  counsel,  with  their  statement 
of  the  case. 

B.  Statistics  showing  earnings  of  mint 
workers. 

C.  Statistics  showing  hours  per  day 
worked. 

D.  Statement  showing  sizes  of  min* 
cars. 

E.  Statement  showing  cost  of  leading 
articles  of  food  in  the  anthracite  coal 
region,  1898  to  1902. 

F.  The  revised  constitution  of  the  Uni- 
ted Mine  Workers  of  America. 

G.  Replies  of  presidents  of  coal  com- 
panies to  the  letter  of  John  Mitchell  of 
Feb.  14,  1902,  requesting  a joint  confer- 
ence. 

H.  A proposed  plan  for  an  organiza- 
tion for  the  execution  of  trade  agree- 
ments. 

I.  Proposed  bill  providing  for  compul- 
sory investigation  and  publicity  of  facts 
in  industrial  disputes. 

J.  A list  of  the  anthracite  coal-carry- 
ing companies  and  the  affiliated  coal- 
mining companies. 

Of  these  the  one  proposing  a plan  for 
an  organization  for  the  execution  of 
trade  agreements  is  the  most  interest- 
ing. It  follows: 

Trade  Agreement. 

“In  considering  the  subject,  cogniz- 
ance must  be  taken  of  the  fact  that 
the  union  now  exists,  and  that  two  bit- 
ter struggles,  accompanied  by  suffering, 
loss,  and  inconvenience  to  thousands, 
have  been  experienced  through  its  ef- 
forts to  secure  recognition.  The  ul- 
timate results  of  the  work  of  this 
commission  will  fall  short  of  the  hopes 
of  its  members  if  the  good  effect  of  its 
existence  and  labors  end  with  the  date 
upon  which  the  binding  effect  of  the 
award  expires. 

"The  commission  hopes  that  during 
the  life  of  the  award  those  in  both 
sides  of  the  recent  controversy  will  do 
all  in  their  power  to  encourage  and 
es  ablish  relations  of  business  confidence 
between  each  other,  under  which  the 
employes  will  feel  that  the  employer 
has  a real  interest  in  the  employe,  and 
the  employer  will  feel  that  the  employes 
have  an  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the 
company  and  the  industry.  With  the 
establishment  of  such  relations  and  the 
building  of  such  foundation  it  will  not 
be  difficult  to  erect  the  superstructure 
on  the  following  general  plan  which 
is  recommended  by  the  commission: 

"First.  An  organization  of  anthracite 
mine  workers  governed  by  the  anthra- 


cite mine  workers  and  free  from  con- 
trol or  dictation  of  bituminous  mine 
workers.  This  can  be  effected  by  mak- 
ing the  anthracite  mine  workers  a 
separate  department  of  the  union  or 
by  such  other  modification  of  rules  and 
laws  as  will  best  effect  the  purpose. 

"Second.  All  workers  in  and  about 
the  anthracite  mines  excepting  foremen, 
assistant  foremen,  and  other  bosses, 
clerks,  and  office  employes,  to  be  eligible 
to  membership  in  the  organization  and 
entitled  to  its  privileges  and  benefits; 
provided,  that  boys  under  21  years  of 
age  should  not  have  voice  or  vote  on 
propositions  pertaining  to  strikes. 

A Local  Body. 

'Third.  A local  body  of  the  organiza- 
tion for  each  colliery,  composed  of  the 
employes  of  that  colliery  and  officered 
by  officers  chosen  by  them  from  their 
own  ranks. 

"Fourth.  A local  committee  in  each 
local,  composed  of  its  own  members, 
employes  of  the  colliery,  whose  duty  it 
shall  be  to  seek  adjustment,  at  the 
hands  of  the  local  officials,  of  any  local 
complaint  which  the  local  may  refer 
to  the  committee  and  which  the  ag- 
grieved member  is  unable  to  adjust 
with  his  immediate  superior  officer. 

"Fifth.  A general  committee  for  each 
company’s  employes  composed  of  one 
representative  from  each  colliery,  if 
there  be  three  or  more  collieries.  If 
less  than  three  collieries,  the  general 
committee  to  be  composed  of  two  or 
three  members  from  each  colliery.. 
Complaints  which  local  committees  are 
unable  to  adjust  to  be  referred  to  the 
general  committee,  which  should  have 
authority  to  dismiss  or  settle  the  com- 
plaint and  have  their  decision  binding 
upon  the  organization  and  its  members. 
General  committee  to  seek  adjustments 
of  complaints  at  the  hands  of  the  gen- 
eral officers  of  the  employing  company. 
If  the  general  officers  of  the  company 
and  the  general  committee  are  unable 
to  reach  an  agreement,  the  general 
committee  should  have  the  right  to 
call  into  the  conference,  to  assist  and 
advise  them,  sOch  general  officer  of  the 
organization  as  may  be  selected  and 
to  which  such  duties  are  delegated, 
regardless  of  whether  or  not  such  gen- 
eral officer  is  an  employ  of  the  com- 
pany interested. 

"Sixth.  Agreements  between  the  or- 
ganization and  the  employers  of  its 
members,  governing  terms  or  conditions 
of  employment,  should  provide  that  any 
matter  in  dispute  which  the  general  of- 


ficers of  the  company  and  the  general 
committee  of  the  organization,  accom- 
panied! by  their  general  officer,  are 
unable  to  reach  an  adjustment  of  shall 
be  submitted  to  fair  arbitration,  the 
award  to  be  accepted  by  both. 

About  Strikes. 

“Seventh.  No  strike  to  be  inaugurat- 
ed until  the  committees  and  officers  of 
the  organization  have  complied  with 
all  their  rules  and  have  exhausted  all 
other  honorable  efforts  to  reach  an 
agreement  and  have  failed;  nor  then, 
until  proposal  to  strike  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  all  the  members  employed  in 
that  colliery  or  by  that  company  who 
are  entitled  to  vote  on  strike  questions, 
and  two-thirds  of  them  have  voted  by 
ballot  in  favor  of  the  proposal. 

“Eighth.  With  the  inauguration  of 
this  plan  all  mine  workers  in  the  an- 
thracite field  who  are  eligible  to  mem- 
bership should  be  permitted  to  become 
members,  regardless  of  past  differences 
or  prejudices.  After  that  admission 
should  be  by  such  rules  as  may  be 
adopted. 

"Ninth.  The  organization  to  be  gov- 
erned by  a con^itution  framed  and 
enacted  by  a delegate  convention  in 
which  each  local  should  be  entitled  to 
one  delegate.  The  same  convention 
should  adopt  proper  by-laws  and  elect 
the  general  officers  unless  the  rules 
adopted  provide  for  selecting  the  of- 
ficers in  some  other  manner. 

"Tenth.  The  general  officers  to  be 
charged  with  the  duty  of  administer- 
ing the  laws,  rules  and  affairs  of  the 
organization,  and  to  be  given  power 
to  discipline  locals  by  revoking  charters 
or  in  other  proper  manner,  when  such 
locals  fail  to  observe  the  laws  and 
rules  of  the  organization  or  fail  to  re- 
quire compliance  with  those  laws  and 
rules  on  part  of  their  members. 

"This  plan  contemplates  fair,  frank 
and  honest  dealings,  as  well  as  perfect 
good  faith  in  all  things,  between  the 
employer  and  the  employe.  It  intends 
that  the  rights  of  each  shall  be  fully 
recognized  and  carefully  considered  and 
preserved.  It  provides  for  considera- 
tion of  any  case  in  which  an  employe 
is  thought  to  have  been  unjustly  dis- 
ciplined by  the  employer,  and  for  ap- 
peal of  such  cases  to  higher  officials  if 
desired.  It  does  not,\  however,  con- 
template any  improper  or  undue  Inter- 
ference with  the  conduct  of  the  busi- 
ness or  with  the  exercise  of  authority 
and  administration  of  discipline  by  the 
officers  of  the  company. 


296 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE  MINE  STRIKE  COMMISSION 


Full  Recognition. 

“It  gives  full  recognition  of  the  right 
of  the  employes  to  organize  and  to  be 
represented  by  and  heard  through  their 
organization.  It  requires  that  the  same 
recognition  will  be  given  to  the  rights 
of  the  employer  by  the  employes.  It 
renders  unnecessary  any  laws  or  rules 
which  are  biased  on  the  assumption 
that  the  employer  is  antagonistic  to  the 
organization;  hence  none  such  should 
exist  under  it. 

“It  removes  all  necessity  for  secrecy 
as  to  the  personnel  of  the  membership. 
It  is  founded  in  the  principle  of  mutual 
interests  and  mutual  efforts  to  serve 
such  interests.  While  each  will  natur- 
ally look  after  his  own  interests,  within 
proper  limits,  each  can  and  should  also 
have  and  exercise  an  interest  in  the 
other’s  welfare  and  success. 

‘ The  plan  recognizes  that  no  organ- 
ization can  consistently  assume  to  bar- 
gain for  the  employes  of  any  company 
unless  such  organization  fairly  and 


actually  represents  a clear  majority  of 
such  employes  by  having  them  as  bona- 
fide  members.  It  does  not  mean  that  if 
there  be  a minority  of  employes,  who, 
for  reasons  of  their  own,  refrain  from 
becoming  members,  such  minority  shall 
be  prevented  from  working  or  being  in- 
terfered with  in  their  work.  If  they  are 
willing  to  work  under  the  conditions 
fixed  for  the  colliery,  their  right  to  pur- 
sue their  way  unmolested  should  be 
guaranteed. 

‘ In  connection  with  the  establishment 
of  this  method,  it  is  believed  that  it 
would  be  profitable  and  wise  for  the 
organization  to  establish  a death  and 
accident  fund  on  lines  similar  to  those 
followed  by  trades  unions  which  suc- 
cessfully operate  such  funds.  If  the 
benefits  are  made  to  cover  sickness,  so 
much  the  better.  The  organization  could 
also  find  a useful  field  in  applying  its 
efforts  in  direction  of  healthy  legislation 
on  subjects  affecting  the  work  of  its 
members  or  the  industry  in  which  they 
are  employed.  While  caring  for  their 


own  interests  they  could  lend  a helping 
hand  to  the  employer  in  this  connection 
by  promoting  his  interests  when  not 
detrimental  to  their  own. 

About  Agreements. 

'Collective  bargaining  and  trade 
agreements,  as  herein  suggested,  should 
bring  with  them  guaranties  of  exemp- 
tion from  the  complications  and  troubles 
which  present  themselves  in  the  absence 
of  such  bargaining,  especially  sympa- 
thetic strikes;  these  should  be  guarded 
against  in  the  agreements.  The  success 
of  such  plan  depends  upon  the  spirit 
which  is  entertained  by  the  parties  to  t. 
The  integrity  of  the  trade  agreement 
should  be  rigidly  upheld  and  sustained. 
Its  plain  terms  should  be  inviolable  dur- 
ing the  life  of  the  agreement.  Differ- 
ences of  opinion  are  bound  to  arise,  but 
with  a proper  desire  actuating  both 
sides  and  an  agreement  to  refer  such 
differences  to  arbitration  if  necessary, 
lations  seem  adequate.” 


